Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock.

The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Water Provisional Order Bill,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Water Provisional Order Bill, Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to proceed with the Bill forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

NEW WRITS.

For the County of Lancaster (Widnes Division), Colonel William Hall Walker, Manor of Northstead.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

For the County of York, West Riding (Pontefract Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Compton-Rickett, deceased.—[Captain Guest.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR INVENTIONS (MR. CONSTANTINESCO).

Mr. HOGGE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. Constantinesco, whose inventions
have been very valuable to the Allies during the War, is leaving England, of which he is now a naturalised citizen, as he cannot secure a reasonable share of the royalties due from the Government upon patents employed by them; and what steps can be taken to enable him to remain and complete the important experiments he is conducting for the Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. Mr. Constantinesco is employed under agreement with the Government, the direction of his work being carried out by the Admiralty on behalf of the Government. He has proceeded, at his own request, on one month's leave, but his agreement remains in force. In his request for leave, I may perhaps say, Mr. Constantinesco makes no mention of any question connected with his royalties.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that over £300,000 is now due by the Admiralty under this arrangement and that this man is unable to obtain a penny?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There may be some difference of opinion with regard to the matter. I will refresh my memory by looking into the facts.

Mr. HOGGE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, early in the War. Mr. Constantinesco came to this country and, when he could speak only Roumanian, entered into a partnership with Mr. Walter Haddon, the terms of which were damaging to Mr. Constantinesco's interest; and whether he possesses any powers to protect inventors so placed?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I know nothing of the case in question, but may say that the Board of Trade does not possess any power to interfere in a partnership between an inventor and another.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENAI BRIDGE.

Sir OWEN THOMAS: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the total annual receipts received from all traffic crossing the Menai Bridge, Anglesey and Carnarvon; and what the total annual cost of maintenance, repairs, wages, and general upkeep has been during the last ten years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The total receipts during the last ten years amounted to £22,968 17s. 9d. and the total expenditure to £19,762 17s. 4d. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend the detailed figures for each year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER CONTROL.

Mr. PERRING: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when Government purchases of timber ceased and the date when timber was decontrolled; what premises the Controller of Timber Supplies, the Government timber buyer, and the Timber Disposal Board are at present occupying, respectively; how many clerks and officials are or were employed in each Department, respectively, on 1st December, 1st April, and 1st August last; and what is the cost of the administration of each case?

Sir A. GEDDES: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also state in the reply whether the Government timber buyer is also operating his own private yard?

—
Staff at 80, Newman Street (a)
Staff at Salisbury House.


Timber Supplies Department (Board of Trade).
Disposal Board (Timber Section).
Government Timber Buyers.


Nos.
Annual cost.
Nos.
Annual cost.
Nos.
Annual cost. (c)




£

£

£


1st December, 1918
…
…
466
70,941
—
—
596
97,680


1st April, 1919
…
…
267
46,151
6
2,840
591
99,643


1st August, 1919
…
…
191 (b)
31,690
19
5,017
564 (d)
90,352


(a) Includes numbers and salaries (paid by lending Departments) of Army officers. Civil servants and railway officials on loan to the Departments, but excludes messengers.


(b) Twenty-six members of this staff are also partly engaged on Disposal Board work.


(c) This does not include the remuneration of the three partners.


(d) Ten members of this staff are partly engaged on Disposal Board work.

I may add that since the Armistice sales to the following amounts have been made and others are being arranged daily:


On account of Timber Supplies Department
—



£


Standing timber
763,000


Other home-grown timber
835,000


Imported timber
14,871,000


Plant and miscellaneous
54,000

Sir A. GEDDES: I should require special notice of the last part of the question. The answer which is prepared covers the point raised in the question, which is in some respects different from that raised by the hon. Member.

The following is the answer referred to:

The control of timber (other than pit-wood) ceased at the end of March last. The Controller of Timber Supplies has, however, to dispose of the balance of the national stock of imported timber (some of which is still in transit to this country) and of the stocks of home-grown timber, in the hands of his Department as well as of large quantities of standing timber, and of the Department's timber-working operations throughout the country, including those taken over from the Canadian Forestry Corps. In addition, the Controller of Timber Supplies is Controller for the disposal of timber handed over as surplus by various Government Departments. In London the Timber Supplies Department, including the Timber Section of the Disposal Board, occupies part of the York Hotel, 80, Newman Street, W., and the Government timber buyers occupy seventy-one rooms in Salisbury House, E.G. The remaining information asked for is as follows:

On account of Surplus Timber Section of Disposal Board—
£


Surplus timber, various
777,000

The Department has not sought to extract large profits and the above sales have been made at prices differing little from the cost in the aggregate, making allowance for depreciation of plant where necessary. Having regard to the fact that the
purchases were made in war-time, the results to date are considered highly satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERHEAD RAILWAY, GOODWOOD.

Brigadier-General Sir HILL CHILD: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the purpose for which it is intended to use the overhead railway now being constructed by the Government over a distance of about seven miles across the Duke of Richmond's Goodwood estate, in view of the fact that the object for which this railway was originally intended, i.e., to carry timber to a Government factory at Lavant, no longer exists, the factory having been closed since 18th July and advertised for sale?

Sir A. GEDDES: The ropeway referred to was intended not only to supply the factory but to carry plank timber to a point where it can be put on the railway. The ropeway, which is on the point of completion, will still be required for the latter purpose.

Major Earl WINTERTON: Is it intended to continue work on this ropeway?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. The ropeway is now on the point of completion.

Earl WINTERTON: As there is a perfectly good main road adjoining North Wood, to which the timber is being brought, why cannot it be hauled along the road, and why is it necessary to construct, at great cost, an overhead railway in the wilds of the country?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have not myself had an opportunity of seeing the locality, so I cannot express any opinion as to the excellence or otherwise of the high road, but this ropeway was, I understand, started to work in connection with a factory. The factory construction was stopped, but the ropeway construction was so far forward that it was cheaper to complete it.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that this is regarded in the locality as a very grave scandal, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter and make some further reference to it when the House meets in the autumn?

Sir A. GEDDES: A very easy method of raising the matter will be to put down a question.

Major MORRISON-BELL: Is this one of those Departmental snowballs which cannot stop rolling?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL.

MINER'S SUPPLY.

Mr. ATKEY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the tonnage of coal per annum supplied to the miners for their personal use free, or for the cost of carting, or at a lower price than that paid by the ordinary private consumer?

Sir A. GEDDES: The quantity of coal supplied to the miners during the year 1918 on the terms mentioned in the question was 5,850,000 tons.

Mr. ATKEY: In view of the altered conditions, is it not advisable to reconsider the question of these terms and, while doing justice, see that they only consume what they pay for?

Mr. LUNN: Do not the miners now pay for the coal that they get?

Sir A. GEDDES: Some miners pay a small sum for their coal—a few shillings a ton. Some pay rather more than that. I know of no case where the miners are supplied and are paying the same for coal as other people. The whole question has been most carefully considered, and it is not possible to deal with this coal, which constitutes, in many cases, part of the miners' wages, in the way suggested.

EXPORT PRICES.

Mr. HOUSTON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can explain why the schedule price of coal for export from South Wales to Argentina for the use of British-owned railways in that country should be for Monmouthshire coal, 51s. per ton, and the actual selling price to-day should be 70s. per ton, Cardiff coal 80s. per ton; whether these prices are named by the collieries, at the instance or instigation of the Coal Controller that they should get as much as they can over the minimum prices; whether these prices are killing the export trade in coal, resulting in grave national loss, and driving consumers in South America to purchase American coal, which can be purchased f.o.b. at 25s. per ton or less; and can he state what price the Admralty is at present paying for Cardiff coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: The current export prices are those established in the open market in the ordinary way, and the fact that consumers in South America are driven to purchase American coal is duo to the very restricted amount of coal
which can be released for export, the total quantity available for South America being only about one-seventh of the prewar quantity. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. HOUSTON: Seeing that the higher prices of coal in South Wales is killing our export trade, can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government does not control these prices, and will he state whether it is the fact that the Government are profiteering in coal in the same manner as they did in food, shipping freights, and shipping tonnage?

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think the Government is profiteering in coal. The Government has been making up a loss. I do not know whether the hon. Member would call that profiteering. The position is this, that such profits as there are on the export of coal are going in relief of the cost of domestically-consumed coal.

Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that he is killing the export trade of the country, upon which this country depends for its existence?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is not I who am killing the export trade.

PRICES (KENT AND LONDON).

Mr. ROWLANDS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the price of coal in Kent is 6s. per ton more than in London; whether the bulk of the coal supplies in these areas along the Thames is sea-borne; and can he state the cause of this extra charge?

Sir A. GEDDES: The price of coal in Kent is higher than that in London, even in the case of rail-borne coal, because of the higher railway rate from the Midland coalfields. The amount of the difference in prices varies on account of variation in railway rates to different places. In the case of coal carried coastwise to places in Kent, the difference, as compared with London rail-borne coal, will be still greater and may in some cases considerably exceed the sum of 6s. per ton mentioned by the hon. Member, the reason being the higher charges for transport and handling on sea-borne than on rail-borne coal.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the increase in the price of freightage for sea-borne coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: That would be quite impossible without notice, and without the ports being given in which the hon. Member is interested.

Mr. FRANCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman settle this question of rail-borne and sea-borne traffic or is it settled by his right hon. relative; and in case of any difference arising who arbitrates?

Sir A. GEDDES: The question of arbitration has never arisen in any shape or form.

PROFITS.

Mr. GILBERT: 24.
asked what profit has been made by the Coal Controller's Department on bunker coal sold to steamers in the United Kingdom for the six months ending 30th June last; and will he state the profit during the same period made on coal sold to manufacturers in the United Kingdom?

Sir A. GEDDES: I regret that I have no information as to the profits on bunker coal sold to steamers or coal sold to manufacturers in the United Kingdom during the six months ended 30th June.

Mr. GILBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who are buying Welsh coal for bunker purposes are charged 20s. a ton move than people who buy the same coal for inland purposes? If not will he make inquiries?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is the point which we were discussing in question and answer. The coal which is going outside the country even for use in British steamers is sold at the market price. Coal used inside the country is not. It is sold at an artificial price which is controlled by the Government.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the high prices of bunker coal, combined with the absence of cargoes of coal, increase greatly the prices of food and every other commodity?

Sir A. GEDDES: Indeed I am.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not enter into argument. The object of questions is only to elicit facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).

Colonel YATE: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to prevent the import of plumage into this country the export of which has been prohibited from any portion of the British Empire?

Sir A. GEDDES: No feathers beyond those specified in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 20th February last have been made the subject of absolute embargo. As the hon. and gallant Member will realise, the object he has in view would more properly be attained by special legislation for the purpose than by an adaptation of the import restrictions. The whole matter is under consideration.

Mr. GILBERT: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of persons who were employed by his Department in the Imports Restriction branch on the 31st December last and the number that are being employed to-day; what buildings they occupy at the present time; and what the estimated cost of this branch of his Department will be for the present year?

Sir A. GEDDES: The number of staff employed at the London offices of the Department of Import Restrictions was 123 on the 31st December last and 108 on the 1st August of this year. The Department occupies fifteen rooms at No. 22, Carlisle Place, Westminster, and six rooms at No. 16, Carlisle Mansions, Westminster. In addition, the Department has a Paris branch accommodated at No. 10, Place Edouard VII., the staff of which numbered nine on the 31st December and eight on the 30th June. The estimated expenditure for the current year is £22,525. I am arranging to amalgamate the Import Restrictions and Export Licence Department and hope to make a considerable reduction in the joint staff as against the number employed separately by the two Departments.

Mr. KILEY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the names of the members of the Committee who advise him in matters concerning the restrictions of imports and exports?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Committee which is at present considering these matters is
composed as follows: Chairman—President of the Board of Trade; Members—the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for War and Air, President of the Board of Education, Minister of Labour, Minister of Pensions, First Commissioner of Works, and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division in his capacity as Minister without portfolio.

Mr. CROOKS: Does it meet?

Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, yes; twice last week.

Mr. KILEY: Are we to understand that these men are trade experts?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir; but they judge the evidence given by those who are trade experts.

Major GREAME: Is the First Commissioner of Works employed by reason of his office or by reason of his economic views?

Mr. KILEY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared, when granting licences in connection with import restrictions, to fix a reasonable mar gin of profit in order to prevent excessive profiteering?

Sir A. GEDDES: I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that he will find that the statement to be made by the Prime Minister to-day will, in fact, give a much fuller answer than would be possible within the limits of a reply to a question.

Mr. KILEY: 14.
asked the President of the Board pi Trade if the Consolidated List of Import Restrictions, revised to date and published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 31st July, 1919, applies to all countries, or if special exceptions are made concerning imports from France and Italy; and, if so, can all variations be published in the "Board of Trade Journal"?

Sir A. GEDDES: The list applies generally to all countries, but special concessions have been given to France and Italy. In the event of a further edition of the list being published, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. KILEY: Could the variations week by week be given in the "Board of Trade Journal," so that those traders who are
interested may know what concessions their competitors are getting of which they have no knowledge?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will consider that.

MURIATE OF POTASH.

Mr. JOHN DENNIS: 61 and 86.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether a licence to import 200 tons of muriate of potash has been applied for by the West Norfolk Farmers' Manure Company, Limited, a farmers' co-operative association; whether such licence has been refused, the applicant being referred to the British Potash Company; whether any valid reason exists for the restriction of trade liberty in the importation of this fertiliser; and whether, in the event of the applicant being forced to buy from the rival concern named, he will undertake that the cost of this fertiliser in King's Lynn to the applicant shall not exceed its contract price with the Alsace-Lorraine trading company for the 200 tons in question;
(2)the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that muriate of potash is required for the manufacture of compound root manures; whether the West Norfolk Farmers' Manure Company, Limited, whose output is 20,000 tons of manure per annum, is not permitted to import muriates for their manufacture; whether, in order to get the required production for next year's crop, its manufacture must be at once proceeded with; and whether any shortage in production must have a detrimental effect on the 1920 crops of potatoes and other roots;
(3)the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the West Norfolk Farmers' Manure Company, Limited, of King's Lynn, is unable to employ its plant and men owing to its inability to obtain a licence to import muriate of potash already contracted for and now awaiting shipment at Rotterdam; whether its works are on the point of being closed down in consequence, entailing a large number of men being thrown out of employment; and whether he can take any steps to avert this calamity?

Sir A. GEDDES: The application from the company was dated 11th August, and has not yet been replied to. The requirements of the company will be filled by the British Potash Company, who hold a licence for the higher grade of potash salt referred to. The Alsace-Lorraine Trading
Company do not import the higher grade salts, and if the West Norfolk Farmers' Manure Company, Limited, have contracted to buy an import-prohibited article they should have first assured themselves that a licence would be issued. At the same time, it is probable that the muriate, which will arrive in the course of the next day or two, will be delivered at a price at least as favourable as that at which it could be obtained from the Alsace company. That price will be the f.a.s. price at Rotterdam, as fixed by international agreement, plus incidental expenses.

Mr. DENNIS: Will the price added to the f.a.s. price Rotterdam be the freight price direct Rotterdam to King's Lynn, or will it be freight Rotterdam to London plus freight from London? Cannot it be imported direct to King's Lynn?

Sir A. GEDDES: I should require notice of that before answering with absolute certainty, but I know of no reason why it should not be brought direct to King's Lynn.

IRON EXPORTS.

Mr. SITCH: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether iron is being exported from, this country to foreign ports, including those of Japan; if so, for what purpose this iron is being supplied; how long its exportation has been in progress since the Armistice, and the approximate weekly quantities so dealt with; whether he is aware that numbers of our own home workers in the iron industry are out of employment through shortage of supplies; and will he take steps to ensure that their requirements are adequately satisfied, first of all, before any more iron is allowed to leave the country?

Sir A. GEDDES: The exportation of pig-iron was in progress before the Armistice, and has continued since, but on a reduced scale. It is supplied for general purposes, including foundry work and steel making. The average weekly export for the seven months ended on the 31st July last was 4,500 tons; about 90 per cent, of the total was to Allied countries for reconstruction purposes, and the remainder consisted mainly of grades for which there is no ready sale in this country. Exportation is allowed only under licence, and the position as regards supplies and requirements here is carefully watched.

CHEVIOT WOOL (PRICES).

Mr. HOGGE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that Cheviot wool has been sold at recent sales at Hawick at prices varying from 79s. to 80s. per stone of 24 lbs., while the maximum price allowed by the Government last year was 40s., at the last open market in 1915 the price was 40s. to 41s., and in 1914 the price was 24s. 6d. per stone; and, if so, whether his Department will deal with such sales under the Profiteering Bill?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The whole question of wool prices will require careful examination, but I may point out the prices quoted were realised at open auction, which, if the Profiteering Bill were to become law in the form it left this House, would exclude such transactions from its provisions.

Mr. HOGGE: When the right hon. Gentleman says "require consideration," does he mean that he is going to give the matter consideration?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes.

Mr. DENNIS: Do farmers selling their produce at market price, otherwise than by auction, come within the scope of the Profiteering Bill?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is quite impossible for me to predict what will be the terms of the Profiteering Act. The Bill, as it left this House, excludes from its provisions sales by public auction and prices fixed by open public tender.

FOREIGN COMPETITION (SWEATED LABOUR).

Mr. CLYNES: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now publish the Report submitted by the Council of Reconstruction, which recommended that effect be given to the suggestion of the Committee on Trade after the War to the effect that steps be taken to prevent competition of goods made by sweated foreign labour with those produced by higher-paid labour in this country; and can he state the action the Government propose to take concerning the recommendation?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will consider the right hon. Member's proposal. The Government's trade policy will be announced by the Prime Minister.

LATIN-AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department whether, with a view to re-establishing and improving the trade of the United Kingdom in the Latin-American Republics, he will send a Special Commissioner, fully acquainted with the manufacturing conditions of this country, to inquire into and report upon the particular requirements of all the Republics in question, so that British manufacturers may be encouraged to increase their exports to Latin-America?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: (Department of Oversea Trade): Steps have already been taken to secure the ends indicated in the question. It is impossible for any one Commissioner to cover the whole of South America. Six Commercial Secretaries have already been appointed to Latin-American countries, and the appointment of three more is in immediate prospect. It is the duty of these officers, assisted by the members of the British Consular Service, to study these countries for the purposes suggested in the question. In addition, special Commissioners are already engaged, under the joint auspices of the Department of Oversea Trade and the appropriate trade associations, in investigating the possibilities of Brazil and Chili for the sale of British engineering products, and in studying the South American market for jewellery, electroplate, and confectionery.

Major LOWTHER: May I ask whether those Commissioners are additional to the Commercial Attachés who, I understand, have been appointed to Chili, the Argentine, and Brazil?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Commercial Secretaries take the place of what were formerly known as Commercial Attachés, but in total throughout the world they are more numerous than the Commercial Attachés were.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Will similar Commissioners be sent to European countries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Many have been sent, and others are going.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will the hon. Gentleman make it a condition of the appointment of those officials going to South America that they shall devote the few months necessary to acquire the language
of each country, so as to be able to compete with their German rivals, who never arrive in South America without knowing the language of the country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Nobody is accredited as a Commercial Secretary or Consul to any country unless he is a master of the language of that country.

Mr. RAPER: Has that applied in the past?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not responsible for the past, but it applies now.

Mr. KILEY: Will the hon. Gentleman see that some of them have commercial experience?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: All these Commercial Secretaries have had commercial experience before they got the appointments.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

NOTTINGHAM MIDLAND STATION.

Mr. ATKEY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the evidence submitted by the Chamber of Commerce, the Corporation of Nottingham, and the petition to the Midland Railway Company, signed by over 1,000 season-ticket holders, as to the great inconvenience suffered by the travelling public in Nottingham arising from the closing of the entrance to the Midland Station opposite Trent Street, he will make such representations to the Railway Executive Committee as will at once meet the demand for the reopening of the entrance in question, and also avoid the necessity of taking the chief inspecting officer of railways from his more important duties in order to visit Nottingham?

Sir A. GEDDES: As the hon. Member has already been informed by letter, the chief inspecting officer of railways is to-day visiting Nottingham in connection with this matter.

Mr. ATKEY: How long does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate it will take to make up his mind and report, so that it can be acted upon, and will he bear in mind that the people of Nottingham sent me to support a Do-it-now Government in preference to a Wait-and-see one?

WAGONS (SHORTAGE).

Mr. GILBERT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great shortage of railway wagons in the Port of London; whether he is aware that this shortage is causing grave congestion at the London docks, as it is making it impossible to get goods cleared after arrival in the port; and will he urge on the Railway Executive Committee the importance of the matter and see if, by obtaining wagons from France or elsewhere, something can be done to relieve the present situation?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that there is at present considerable congestion in the Port of London, as well as at other ports, and that the difficulty of obtaining an adequate supply of railway wagons is one of the factors in the situation. The Railway Executive Committee and other authorities and Departments concerned are doing all that is possible to improve matters, and wagons are now being brought back from abroad.

Mr. GILBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what number of wagons have been brought back from France up to now, and what numbers will be brought back in. the immediate future?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir. I shall require notice of that question. I shall be pleased to communicate the facts to my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there has been any speeding up in the making of wagons? Is he aware that there are 80,000 wagons short, and have been for a long time? Are the wagon-makers working at full speed, and could not some of the Government Departments start making wagons and find work for a great many men who are out of work?

Sir A. GEDDES: Wagons are being made by the Government. I understand that all those wagon-makers who make wagons of the type required by railways are fully employed.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not a fact that railway material is being sent from France to South Africa?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. I understand that there is some railway material from France being sent to South Africa. There is a good deal of railway material in France which could not be used in this country.

DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC (COASTWISE SHIPPING).

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the Order he has made as regards diverting traffic from railways to coastwise steamers; if the Order means in effect a payment or subsidy on every ton of goods that will be carried in this manner; can he give any approximate figures of the allowance per ton of goods carried by coastwise steamers; and what is the estimated cost of such subsidy for the present financial year?

Sir A. GEDDES: No Order has yet been issued owing to the extraordinary complexity of the problem of how best to relieve the strain on the railways by the resuscitation of coastwise shipping. I am hopeful that a satisfactory agreement may be reached at an early date.

CYCLES (CARRIAGE RATES).

Mr. GRITTEN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will forthwith secure the reduction of the enhanced rates charged by railway companies for the carriage of cycles, seeing that such rates are oppressive, and often quite prohibitive in the cases of the poorer users of cycles; and if he will state why the Railway Executive Committee has declined to receive a deputation from the Cyclists' Touring Club, who have twice endeavoured to obtain the opportunity of laying before that committee the views of the cycling public and their protests against these increased rates?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that the question of the revised charges introduced last March for conveyance of cycles by passenger train has been very carefully considered by the railway companies and I am afraid that in present circumstances I could not press them to make a reduction in the charges. I understand that the Railway Executive Committee informed the Cyclists' Touring Club that in view of the full consideration that had been given to the matter they did not think that there would be any advantage in receiving a deputation.

Mr. GRITTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these charges on the part of British railways are grossly excessive, not only as compared with the charges before the War, but as compared
with the charges in other countries; and in view of the fact that 5,000,000 people in this Kingdom are affected, can he see his way to make this concession, and as the summer holidays are now on will he make it quickly?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is asking the same question over again.

FISH (TRANSPORT).

Mr. GRITTEN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in spite of repeated representations with regard to the delay in the transport of fish from the ports to the markets and notwithstanding the appeals to him on the subject, the transportation of fish only from King's Cross Station to Billingsgate Market often takes no less than nine hours; and whether he will, in the interests of fishermen, fish merchants, and consumers, take immediate measures to alter this state of affairs?

Sir A. GEDDES: Any delays in the delivery of fish at Billingsgate Market are brought about largely by the arrangements existing at the market. As the result of a conference which I called last month between representatives of the Corporation of London and the railway companies, steps are being taken to improve the situation.

Mr. GRITTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that through these delays in transportation it is impossible in many cases for the fishermen to sell their fish; and also because of the high price of coat many trawlers are being laid up; and can he see his way to use his good offices with the Coal Controller to reduce the price of coal to the owners of steam trawlers?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHIC APPARATUS.

Mr. CHADWICK: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet taken steps to confirm the statement made by the managing director of the Marconi Company in a letter dated 30th July, and to which his attention was called on that day, namely, that a wireless apparatus could be so constructed as to respond only to the S.O.S. call by ringing a bell?

Sir A. GEDDES: Some inquiries have already been made on this subject, and it will have, to be thoroughly investigated in connection with the rules which the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Postmaster-General, have to make under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Bill.

Mr. CHADWICK: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that the statement of the manager of the Marconi Company is a correct statement or not?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is the point we are investigating.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN SHIP "ENGLEWOOD."

Mr. CHADWICK: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the accident, which was reported on Wednesday, the 13th August, to the American ship "Englewood"; what was the distance of the ship at the time of the accident from the nearest lifeboat station; what was the number of people on board; whether the wireless call to rush help was the means of bringing help either from land or sea; what was the condition of the sea and the weather; and what was the condition of visibility?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have received some information regarding the casualty to the United States vessel "Englewood"; she is said to have been about ten miles from the nearest lifeboat station when the accident occurred, and to have had forty-eight persons on board. Her wireless call is said to have brought assistance from Harwich; the sea appears to have been smooth, the weather fine, and the visibility fair.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSENGER SHIPS (WIRELESS EQUIPMENT).

Mr. CHADWICK: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the confirmation he has now received from the British Minister at Athens, namely, that all Greek passenger steamers over 300 tons are required to carry wireless telegraph equipment, and, having regard to the grave effect that this information would have had on the
Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Bill and to the great importance of Great Britain not being behind Greece or any other country in an important life-saving matter of this kind, he will say what steps can be taken to bring within the scope of the Act all British passenger ships over 300 tons?

Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has, I understand, informed him that the Greek law applies to steamers over 300 tons which carry fifty persons or more and not to all passenger steamers over that tonnage. The Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act applies to all seagoing passenger steamers whatever their tonnage and the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Act applies to all steamers carrying fifty persons or more, irrespective of tonnage. The British law regarding the fitting of wireless telegraph apparatus on passenger steamers appears, therefore, to be of considerably wider application than the Greek law.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN (PEACE TERMS).

Colonel YATE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for India when he proposes to lay upon the Table the Papers regarding Afghanistan; and when an opportunty will be afforded for discussing the terms of the Peace with the Amir that has lately been signed at Rawal Pindi?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I hope to lay the Papers this week. The second part of the question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

POLICE PAY.

Sir J. D. REES: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that officers of the Indian Police in presidencies and provinces are not yet enjoying the benefit of the improved scale sanctioned as from 1st January, 1919, be cause the local accountants-general have not yet had instructions to pay the higher rates; and whether he will now cause the necessary action to be taken in this behalf?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: No, Sir, but I am making inquiries.

BURMA (REFORMS).

Sir J. D. REES: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Report the Government of India was asked to submit to him regarding the position of Burma in regard to constitutional reforms as arising out of the Montagu Chelmsford Report has been received; and whether the Joint Committee now sitting will be given an opportunity of considering the claims of Burma to be included in such reforms as are introduced into the constitution of the British-Indian Empire, of which the province is a highly-developed member?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 198 of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. I understand that the proposals of the Government of Burma have only just reached the Government of India.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN PRISONERS IN GERMANY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an approximate figure as to the number of Russian prisoners still in Germany; whether steps are being taken to repatriate them; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will see that these men are not sent to Generals Denikin or Yudenitch or Koltchak to be forced into the counter-revolutionary armies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): The number of Russian prisoners still in Germany is understood to be about 250,000. The German Government are taking stops to repatriate these prisoners. I know of no intention to send these prisoners against their will to any of the anti-Bolshevik armies.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is a representative of Admiral Koltchak now in Berlin recruiting from these prisoners as reported in the Press to-day?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. I do not know anything about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONCESSIONS.

Major DAVIES: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the
treaties to be filed and published by the League of Nations include all financial and economic concessions made by the States which are members of the League?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can only refer to the text of the Covenant of the League. Whether in any particular case a financial or economic concession constitutes an international engagement under Article 18 will no doubt have to be decided on its merits.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Does the new Anglo-Persian Treaty come under this head?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not sure of that.

JUGO-SLAVS (DALMATIAN COAST).

Major DAVIES: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether several thousands of Jugo-Slavs, including members of the national council, judges, mayors and dignitaries of the Church, have con deported by the Italian authorities from the Dalmatian and Crotian coast and islands and from the Slav districts of Istria and the Slovene countries east of the Isonzo; and, if so, whether any representations have been made to the Italian Government by the Foreign Office?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am unable to give any definite reply to the first part of the question, as I have received no reports from independent sources. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

FRENCH TEXT.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the translation of the original English text of the Peace Treaty into French, Armaments are reduced is translated as Les armaments sont réduits; whether Calculated to disturb is translated as Calculé pour troubler; whether Understandings is translated as Ententes, whether Control is translated by Contrôle, which has an entirely different sense; and whether he proposes to take any steps, educational or otherwise, to remedy what is characterised in the French Press as the exotic syntax of the British Foreign Office?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As this question is of academic rather than Parliamentary interest, I will circulate the answer. [Hon.
MEMBERS: "No!"] As the hon. and gallant Member does not indicate where the expressions he criticises are to be found in the Treaty, it is a little difficult to answer his question. I have so far been, unable to find in the Treaty either "armaments are reduced" or "les armaments sont réduits," but, in any case, I am unable to see that the one expression is not a perfectly accurate translation of the other. The expression "calculated to disturb" is found in the English text of Article 44, but the French text is not "calculé pour troubler," but "cherchant à troubler." In Article 21 the French text has "ententes" and the English "understandings," and I am unable to see that the one is not in the context a perfectly accurate translation of the other. The word "control" occurs so often in the Treaty that I am unable to say to what extent it is translated by "contrôle," but if the hon. and gallant Member is of opinion that the sense of the two words is always entirely different I must respectfully differ from him. I do not quite understand how the exotic syntax of the Foreign Office can be held responsible for what the hon. and gallant Member appears to regard as mistakes by those responsible for the French text, but in any case he will understand that no alterations are now possible in the text of the Treaty.

Earl WINTERTON: Will my hon. Friend permit me to send him a copy of a distinguished French newspaper which deals with all the points mentioned in the question?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. Member undertake to have it translated into Tootingeese, so that hon. Members can understand if?

Oral Answers to Questions — DARMSTADT, DRESDEN, AND MUNICH LEGATIONS.

Mr. LINDSAY: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the cost of each of the Legations at Darmstadt, Dresden, and Munich for 1913?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The cost of each of the three Legations, including the salaries of the staff, was £734, £1,845, and £2,133, respectively, in the financial year 1913–14.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARIS CONFERENCE (COST OF BRITISH MISSION).

Colonel GRETTON: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a full statement of all the costs of the British Mission to the Peace Conference at Paris will be furnished to the end of the quarter, 30th September?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The statement requested by the hon. and gallant Member will be furnished as soon after the close of the quarter as possible, but an interval must necessarily elapse as information will have to be collected from the several Departments by whom expenditure on account of the Peace Conference has been incurred.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the cost be presented to Parliament when the estimates are ready for the remaining charges and the cost is asked to be voted?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the cost will appear in several different Votes, because the delegates at the Paris Conference were not all representatives of the Foreign Office.

Colonel GRETTON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the object of this question is to secure a complete statement, and not to have a number of statements scattered among ordinary Votes?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should put a question to the Treasury on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

VISCOUNT MILNER'S COMMISSION.

Earl WINTERTON: 39.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that some misgivings were felt by the unofficial British community in Egypt as to the methods being adopted by the Committee of Information which had been set up by the Egpytian Government to collect information to place before the Commission to be sent out; and whether, when the Commission came to take evidence, unofficial British, foreign, and Egyptian witnesses would be encouraged to come forward?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am unaware of any such misgivings, but the Noble Lord may rest assured that every encourage-
ment will be given to unofficial witnesses, whatever their nationality, whose evidence is likely to be of value.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the important British interests in Cairo have protested strongly against this method of collecting information and have demanded that information should be got first-hand from all witnesses?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. I understand that the Commission will get first-hand information from all who can give it.

Captain W. BENN: When will the Commission start?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give the exact date.

Earl WINTERTON: What is the object in setting up this Committee?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The object was to make certain preliminary inquiries on the subject before Lord Milner arrived, to assist him in his later operations.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state what were the terms of reference of the Milner Commission, to Egypt; when the Commission will begin to take evidence in this country; when it will proceed to Egypt; and whether he will now give the names of those gentlemen who have so far accepted an invitation to serve on the Committee?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The terms of reference of Lord Milner's Mission are:
To inquire into the causers of the late disturbances in Egypt, and to report on the existing situation in the country and the form of constitution which under the Protectorate will be best calculated to promote its peace and prosperity, the progressive development of self-governing institutions and the protection of foreign interests.
Lord Milner does not propose to take evidence in this country before the Mission goes out, which, it is hoped, will be early in October. All the gentlemen invited to form part of the Mission have accepted, with one exception, and that place has still to be filled. I should prefer not to give the names until the Mission is complete and can be judged as a whole.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office evidence will be taken, after the Commission comes back from Egypt, and not before it leaves this country? Are we to
understand that the cause of the outbreak is to be inquired into? Does not that affect the Foreign Office conduct of the negotiations up to the time of the outbreak?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think we can really leave that matter to Lord Milner.

POSTAL CENSORSHIP.

Earl WINTERTON: 40.
asked the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a censorship on private letters to and from British unofficial residents in Egypt still existed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The censorship of civil mails in Egypt, other than civil mails to and from occupied enemy territory, was abolished on the 24th July. The answer to the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GERMAN ARMS FOR BOLSHEVIKS.

Mr. RAPER: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether ho was aware that large consignments of arms and ammunition, as well as military instructors, were being dispatched from Germany to Bolshevik Russia viâ East Prussia; and whether the Government proposed to take steps to put an end to this traffic under the powers conferred on them by the Peace Treaty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that definite statements are repeatedly made in the Press to this effect? Am I to understand that they are quite untrue?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the same applies to Ireland?

Mr. FORSTER: That does not arise out of this.

CAUCASUS (RATE OF EXCHANGE).

Mr. RAPER: 42
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (1) whether the rate of exchange for the rouble in the Caucasus was 80 to the pound sterling at the time when our forces arrived there and in a few months depreciated to about 475 roubles to the pound sterling; whether this abnormal depreciation was due to the fact that the military authorities when requiring funds sold exchange on London by auction to a ring of local speculators; and whether, in order to safeguard the interests of British merchants, he would take steps to ensure that such delicate financial operations should be conducted by properly qualified financial experts in future, and not by military authorities;
(2) whether he was aware of the discontent caused among our troops in the Caucasus owing to the fact that while they were being paid at the official rate of 200 roubles to the pound sterling the sailors serving on British cruisers in the vicinity were being paid in sterling, which they could sell at the much higher current rates in the bazaar; and whether he would take steps to put this exchange question on a proper businesslike basis?
(3) Whether he was aware of the speculation which was taking place in roubles in the Caucasus owing to the fact that while the rouble rate in the bazaar was between 350 and 450 roubles to the pound sterling, the staff paymaster had fixed the official rate at 200; and whether he was aware that officers having money in Lon don could, accordingly, sell their cheques at the current rates, and with the proceeds buy transfers on London at the military post office at the official rate, namely, 200 roubles to the pound sterling; and whether he would say what he pro posed to do in the matter?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer these questions. I am not prepared to admit the correctness of my hon. Friend's suggestion as to the responsibility of the military authorities for exchange difficulties in the Caucasus, but, as stated in my answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon on the 8th August, I am inquiring into the position there. As regards the rate at which soldiers are paid, I would refer my hon. Friend to the same reply of the 8th August. The payment of sailors in sterling has been discontinued. With regard to question No. 123, I will inquire and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE (WAR HONOURS).

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would make representations to the Prime Minister that special recognition in the distribution of war honours or orders should be bestowed on those members of the Diplomatic and Consular Service, British and neutral, who rendered notable service to the cause of the Allies abroad during the War?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The names of all persons, whether British or neutral, who are recommended to the Secretary of State for recognition of notable services rendered to the cause of the Allies abroad during the War, are carefully considered. A certain number of honours have already been conferred, and further recommendations are now being made.

Mr. HOGGE: Who makes these recommendations?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are several well-known cases in which proper recognition has not been afforded?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of those who, having taken part in the fighting against the air invasion of this country in the London area, have received no awards at all?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is not really a question for me. Recommendations are made from the different Departments in the ordinary course.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL DISCOVERY, DERBYSHIRE (ROYALTIES).

Mr. HOLMES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had come to a decision concerning the payment of royalties on the oil discovered in Derbyshire?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what Regulations had
been made to limit the use of Government motor cars by Ministers of the Crown and Government officials?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Ministers have decided to give up at once the cars hitherto allotted to them. The Government have further decided that no ears should be personally allotted to anyone. A certain number of cars are necessary for the service of the Departments, and these will be used for Government service only. The number of cars has already been greatly reduced, and steps are being taken to effect further reductions at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMINATION OF WAR (DATE).

Captain W. BENN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether an Order in Council to fix the date for the termination of the War would be issued after the ratification, of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany; and whether it would be delayed until the ratification of the treaties to be made with the other enemy belligerents?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, 1918, declares that the Order in Council declaring the termination of the War is to be, as nearly as possible, simultaneous with the ratification of Peace with all our enemies, but power is given to His Majesty in Council to declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of war with any particular State.

Captain BENN: When is it the intention of the Government to declare the War terminated officially?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the question I have answered. As near as may be to the ratification of Peace.

Captain BENN: Does that mean that we are to wait until all the twenty-three belligerents have ratified the Peace?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought I had made it plain, but I will try again. The general termination of the War will not be declared until Peace has been ratified with all our enemies, but there is power to declare that the state of war has ceased in regard to a particular State, and that will happen in regard to Germany as soon as the Treaty has been ratified.

Captain BENN: When will the Government give up the special powers granted to them as emergency powers, such as Defence of the Realm Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have answered that a good many times. They will give them up when this Act terminating the War comes into operation?

Captain BENN: When is it coming into operation?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS' GRAVES, WESTERN FRONT.

Lord R. CECIL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement had now been arrived at with regard to the graves of those who fell on the Western Front; and whether it was possible to give a larger measure of freedom to the relatives of the fallen to honur their dead in the way that seemed to them best?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer my right hon. Friend to the statements which have been published by the Imperial War Graves Commission, and in particular to a pamphlet called "Graves of the Fallen," copies of which have been sent to all Members of both Houses of Parliament. The Imperial War Graves Commission is making every effort to allow the greatest possible freedom to relatives, and my right hon. Friend is probably aware that the Commission recently received on this subject a deputation, with whom the Commission are at present discussing the technical difficulties in the way of satisfying all their wishes.

Lord R. CECIL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement about the final decision of the Imperial War Graves Commission, because I am sure he will realise that it is a question which touches very deeply certain of those who have suffered most severely in the War?

Mr. FORSTER: No one knows that better than myself. I am afraid I cannot say now when I shall be in a position to make a statement, but I can assure my Noble Friend that we are very anxious that there should be no avoidable delay, and we shall take every possible step to expedite procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED SHIPS (FINANCIAL RESULT).

Mr. HOUSTON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could state the total amount of money received and due from British ship owners under the requisition scheme from its inception to date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The approximate amount of money received and due from British ship owners under the requsition scheme is £112,000,000, but this amount has been, or will be, expended in payments to ship owners in respect of hire, lines organisation expenses, total losses, and club calls, etc., with the possible exception of an amount which will be relatively small, but which cannot be calculated with accuracy until all accounts have been rendered and dealt with.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not mistaken as far as losses are concerned? Are these not already paid for out of insurance, on which a profit of £16,000,000 was made?

Colonel WILSON: My answer is quite accurate. The hon. Member asked for certain figures, and I have given the amount asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPOWNERS' PROFITS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. HOUSTON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that the United States Government was compelling British ship owners to pay Income Tax on profits they may make in carrying cargo and passengers to and from America; and whether he would reciprocate by requiring American-owned steamers to pay Income Tax in the same manner to the British Government on profits they might make in carrying cargo and passengers to and from this country?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Under the law, United Kingdom Income Tax is chargeable in respect of the profits arising to a non-resident from any trade or business carried on by him or on his behalf in this country. I understand that the United States of America Income Tax
law is somewhat wider in its scope. As regards the last part of the question, I may remind my hon. Friend that the scope of our own law is now under the consideration of the Royal Commission which has been appointed to investigate the Income Tax in all its aspects.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Government is imposing Income Tax on steamship lines which have representatives in the United States, and surely, if there is any merit in the old proverb, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, can we not apply the name measure here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot change the law; it is for Parliament to do that.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring in legislation to amend the law so as to secure equity?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of discussing the whole question of double Income Tax with the United States Government in order that next year some reciprocal arrangement may be arrived at?

Mr. HOLMES: Have the American shipping companies established here to pay Income Tax on the profits they show here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered that. It is the fact that the American Income Tax law is wider in its scope than ours.

Mr. HOUSTON: Much wider.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question of double Income Tax is before the Royal Commission, and I am awaiting their Report before deciding what further steps can be taken. It is, I recognise, a very important question, and it is also a very difficult question.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Would the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Royal Commission specially to this anomaly?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Houston) would take the proper steps to bring the position of the ship owners before the Royal Commission. It would be bettor presented by someone familiar with the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are a few demobilised general officers who are anxious to obtain appointments in an. official or administrative capacity in all parts of the Empire; and whether, in view of the fact that these gentlemen have in some cases risen to high rank owing to magnificent service in the War, special steps are being taken to note their names for responsible posts in the administration of Imperial or mandate territories?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that services of the nature indicated in this question are being considered by His Majesty's Government in selecting candidates for administrative appointments abroad.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain general officers demobilised who have not been appointed to these appointments yet?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The House knows very well that there are more suitable officers than there are appointments.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister who will be the officers responsible in the near future for filling appointments in the local forces, the police constabulary, customs, preventive services, civil administrations, etc., in the new organisations required for administering territories for which this country is the mandatory of the League of Nations; and, with reference to the filling of these appointments, will special consideration be given to the services of demobilised officers from all fronts?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am unable to add anything in answer to the first part of the question to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Stafford on the 8th of August last, but the Government will have regard to the consideration referred to in the last part of the question.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the names of the persons to whom application
are to be sent are widely advertised, as a good many officers do not know to whom to apply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If it is possible to take any steps of that kind I will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFFIC (METROPOLITAN AREA).

Mr. HIGHAM: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government proposes to appoint a traffic board for London as recommended in the Report of the Select Committee on Traffic (Metropolitan Area); and, if so, is he in a position to announce the names of the members of the board?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have not yet come to a decision in this matter.

Mr. RAPER: Do the Government propose to carry out any of the recommendations of the Committee during the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to carry out some of the recommendations.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for specific reasons laid down in the Report the congestion in the coming winter is likely to be much greater than it is to-day, and does he not think it advisable to get ahead with the work of dealing with the congestion as rapidly as possible?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (STAFF).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister who is the official responsible for appointing officers to the League of Nations staff, mandate territories?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to answer this question until the terms of the various mandates are definitely settled in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

Sir J. D. REES: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can indicate on broad lines before the House rises what the Peace Conference proposes to do in respect of Mesopotamia?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: The Secretary of State for India has been asked to reply to this question. The general outlines of the probable future administration of Mesopotamia have for long been a matter of common anticipation. But the decision of the Peace Conference on the subject has been postponed until such time as the future of the entire regions constituting the former Turkish Empire can be determined.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND ACQUISITION (LIMITED COMPANIES).

Mr. ROYCE: 59.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to a notice in the newspapers stating that a limited liability company is to be formed to purchase some 19,000 acres of land; and whether the acquisition of land by limited liability companies is in accordance with the agricultural policy of the Board?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Board's attention has been drawn to the notice referred to, but I have no further information, and in any case I do not see in what way the Board could interfere.

Mr. ROYCE: Is it in accordance with the policy of the Board?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It could not interfere in a matter of that sort unless the land was badly cultivated.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLAX CROP, LINCOLNSHIRE.

Mr. ROYCE: 60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a report of a fire at Holbeach where a large portion of the 1918 crop of flax grown in Lincoln shire was destroyed; whether the Board instituted an inquiry into the cause of the fire, and, if so, with what result; what was the cost to the Board of the flax destroyed; and whether steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of fires in relation to the crop now feeing harvested.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Careful inquiry was instituted, but the cause of the fire has not been ascertained. The cost to the Board of the flax destroyed
was about £6,000. All possible precautions are being taken to prevent a recurrence to the crop now being gathered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIG FEEDING.

Mr. R. GWYNNE: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that it is practically impossible to feed young pigs at the present time owing to the shortage of offals and the inability of millers, especially those on the South Coast of England, to obtain supplies of wheat al though there are large quantities in the docks; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs and prevent a recurrence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. The general supply of millers' offals at the present time is approximately equal to the average pre-war quantity. Certain millers on the South Coast of England, however, are experiencing difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies of wheat owing partly to the new crop of homegrown wheat not yet being generally available, and partly to the considerable delay in the delivery of imported wheat due to port congestion and lack of transport facilities. Urgent representations have been made to the proper authorities with a view to improving the position as to imported wheat.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

QUEENSFERRY GOVERNMENT FACTORY.

Mr. ROSE: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will state the cost of the buildings and equipment of the Government factory at Queensferry; the amount expended upon wages and supervision; the average number of persons employed; the value of the production of the works; and the intentions of the Government in respect to the future use or disposal of the premises?

Mr. KELLAWAY (Deputy-Minister of Munitions): The capital expenditure on the building and equipment of His Majesty's Explosive factory, Queensferry, has been £4,150,000. The amount expended in wages, including the payment of the supervisory staff, has been approxi-
mately £1,673,000. The average number of employés from 1915 to 1918 was, approximately, 2,500 men and 2,500 women, though 4,000 men were employed while the factory was under construction. The value of the total production of the factory is estimated at £19,800,000, and at £33,000,000 at American contract prices. The future of the factory is still under consideration.

HUNSLET (No. 2) ORDNANCE FACTORY.

Mr. ROSE: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that the Hunslet (No. 2) Ordnance Factory is amongst those which the Director of Factories has decided to retain; will he explain why continued dismissals of workmen take place; and will he now state definitely what are the intentions of his Department with reference to the future of the factory?

Mr. KELLAWAY: This factory is at present engaged in completing work which was in progress at the date of the Armistice. The number of persons employed is reduced from time to time as and when the various stages of manufacture are completed. No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the future of the factory.

Mr. KILEY: Could we know what kind of work it is?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It is an ordnance factory.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is an ordnance factory?

Mr. KELLAWAY: At an ordnance factory they make ordnance.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What sort of ordnance?

SHELL STORAGE, WALTHAMSTOW.

Mr. JESSON: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that poison gas shells and tear shells are stored in the vicinity of Edward Road and Harden Road, Walthamstow, and that the fumes escaping from these shells during the present hot weather are causing illness amongst the inhabitants of the district, besides causing giddiness and swelling and irritation of the eyes; and whether he will have immediate inquiries made as to who is responsible for this nuisance, and see that steps are at once taken for its re moval?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am glad to be able to state that the poison gas and tear shells from this dump have now been cleared away. The officers of the Ministry have been doing everything possible to clear this dump for some time past, but they have experienced great difficulty in arranging the necessary transport. I very much regret the inconvenience that has been caused, but I should like to add that, in the opinion of my advisers, the fumes, in the diluted form in which they occasionally escape into the atmosphere, though objectionable, are not injurious to health.

Mr. JESSON: Is he aware that complaints were made only as recently as last Friday night?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes; but my statement that the dump has been cleared is accurate. I think it has been cleared within the last two or three days.

Mr. JESSON: Is he aware that the health of the children is suffering very seriously as the result of this escape of poison gas?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think I can reassure my hon. Friend. There has been, considerable inconvenience caused; I regret it. It was due to difficulties of transport, but I am advised by medical officers who know the facts that there has been no danger to health.

Mr. JESSON: Can he assure us that this will be dealt with immediately if it has not already been dealt with?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It has already been done.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAMPTON COURT GARDENS.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 66.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he can say when the Report of the Hampton Court Gardens Committee, presented on 1st July, will be circulated for the information of Members?

Mr. BECK: Steps have been taken to enable the Report to be circulated as the hon. Member desires.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Why was it not circulated before?

Mr. BECK: I am not responsible, but understand that, on the grounds of
economy, it was decided that this Paper was not of sufficiently wide importance to require publication. However, now it is asked for, the Paper can be ordered by Members upon the usual pink form. I believe a few copies are immediately available.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (FOOTBALL).

Mr. BRIANT: 67.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the fact that the football pitches provided by the London County Council are altogether inadequate to the needs of London and that the hundreds of clubs which have applied unsuccessfully are left without any facilities for winter sport, a portion of Hyde Park can be set apart for this purpose?

Mr. BECK: The areas in Hyde Park suitable for football are very limited, and there are, of course, innumerable uses for which the park is desired by different sections of the public. I am, however, now considering whether an extended use of the park for games can be allowed, and the claims of those who wish to play football will not be overlooked.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRYSTAL PALACE (IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM).

Mr. KILEY: 68.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what departments are located at the Crystal Palace; what is the floor space; can he state the number of clerks employed; and has he considered the possibility of transferring the staffs employed at the Windsor and St. Ermin's and other London hotels to this building?

Mr. BECK: As regards the first three parts of this question I must refer the hon. Member to the War Office. As regards the last part of the question it has been decided to transfer the Imperial War Museum to the Crystal Palace when no longer required by the War Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ADMIRALTY STAFF.

Major GREAME: 69.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say what are the total numbers of staff employed at
the Admiralty to-day, on the same basis as that given in Command Paper No. 276; and when it is proposed to reduce the staff of the Admiralty to a figure in some way commensurate with its pre-war strength?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The figures for 1st August—the nearest date to to-day for which I have figures—are: Permanent staff, 2,568; temporary staff, 6,697; total, 9,265. We are working to a further reduction of 1,000 in the staff within the next few months, and a further 2,000 by the end of the financial year.

LIEUTENANTS (PAY).

Sir H. CRAIK: 70.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the reason for the wide divergence of 10s. per day between lieutenants who are promoted from sub-lieutenants or mates and those promoted from warrant-officers, seeing that the ground of increase of pay is the increased cost of living, which applies equally to both; and whether, in some cases, mates who are so promoted will receive less pay than they received before promotion?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The wide difference in the ages of lieutenants promoted from sub-lieutenants or males and those promoted from warrant-officers is the reason for the difference in rate of pay. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is he aware that sub-lieutenants under the increased pay are getting less pay in many instances?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that is quite the question.

Sir H. CRAIK: Will he answer the last part of my question?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the latter part is in the negative.

INVERNESS COLLEGE.

Mr. WALLACE: 72.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, on the 14th March, 1918, the Admiralty requisitioned a large portion of the property belonging to Inverness College, Limited, and have since occupied the subjects; whether they refused to pay rent; whether, in order to obviate proceedings, the secretary for Inverness College, Limited, intimated that he would accept in settlement whatever sum the Admiralty's district valuer fixed as reasonable; whether, after some
months' delay, the Admiralty directed their district valuer to report what sum he considered fair and reasonable; whether the district valuer reported that the rent of the property should be made up to £200; whether the Admiralty have carried out this arrangement recommended by their district valuer, and, if not, why not; and what is the sum which the Admiralty consider should be paid in respect of their occupation of the premises mentioned?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts in this case do not wholly accord with my hon. Friend's question. The property was requisitioned on the 19th April, 1918, to provide additional accommodation for the Fleet in connection with the Inverness Base. The premises had ceased to be used for educational purposes, and were only partially occupied at the date of requisitioning. The college authorities have throughout impugned the legality of the Admiralty requisitioning action, and have also contended that they had a legal claim for rent on a commercial basis, and they have refused to make a claim for adjudication by the Losses Commission on the basis of monetary loss. It is true that they expressed a willingness to accept in settlement whatever sum the district valuer might advise, but as a matter of fact it was found that such a settlement would only be accepted if on the basis of a rental calculation, rather than on a monetary loss basis, upon which the Commission fixed their awards.
The Admiralty have been legally advised that the requisitioning action was in order. It is not the fact that the district valuer reported that the rent of the property should be made up to £200. The college authorities claim that amount as rent, whereas the Valuation Department, on the basis of monetary loss, are only able to advise a yearly payment of £21 15s. 11d., which is the sum which would be recommended to the Losses Commission for payment if the college authorities would consent to go before that body. I am advised that there has been no delay preventing a settlement, as the college authorities have from the commencement of Admiralty occupation declined to go before the Commission, or to recede from their claim to legal right to payment on a rental basis. Under these circumstances no payment has been made by the Admiralty in respect of their occupation of the premises, nor is it competent to them to make any payment.

ROSYTH GARDEN CITY.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 73.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the dockyard workmen inhabiting the houses in the Rosyth Garden City are paid any extra wage towards meeting their rents; and, if so, how much this is and to how many men does it apply?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir; but these considerations bear upon the matter. All transferees from the Southern Yards receive 2s. per week beyond the ordinary dockyard rate of wages on account of service at Rosyth. Further, under a recent award, the great majority of mechanics locally entered prior to 2nd December, 1915, will receive a similar addition of 2s. a week. (Of course, these men may or may not be living in the Garden City.) Still further, whether they are eligible for the foregoing consideration or not, all residents in the Garden City get the advantage of a rent which has been made possible, as I explained to my hon. and gallan Friend last Wednesday, by Treasury assistance to meet the cost of labour and materials due to abnormal war conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MILITARY HUTS.

Major GREAME: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the serious shortage of houses and the delay in building, he will arrange with the Ministry of Munitions for the temporary leasing of unoccupied huts until such time as the local housing schemes have been completed?

Colonel SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): Arrangements have been made under which local authorities will be able to purchase huts for housing purposes at a discount of 33⅓ per cent., and the hostels provided by the Ministry of Munitions have been placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Health to be leased to local authorities desiring to use them for temporary housing accommodation. The question of leasing to local authorities military huts which might, without removal, be used for temporary housing is under consideration. As stated in reply to previous questions, a scheme for the utilisation of temporary buildings will, rank for financial assistance as part of the housing scheme of a local authority.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Will similar privileges be given in the case of soldiers' organisations to obtain them?

Colonel SANDERS: I should like, to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FISH WASTAGE.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Food Controller whether his attention has been called to the waste of fish at various ports as the result of local arrangements to keep up prices, whether the cargo of a Scottish herring boat was sold as manure at North Shields on Friday owing to a general agreement not to permit it to be landed because a reduction in prices would have followed; whether the Profiteering Act exempts all such gross profiteering from punishment, since fish is controlled; what action in consequence he proposes to take immediately to stop such practices, and whether it is not time the controlled prices of fish were revised?

Mr. McCURDY: I have no information to the effect that fish is being destroyed at various ports with a view to keeping up prices. If the hon. Member has such information in his possession I shall be glad to receive it, and, of course, immediate inquiries will have to be made into it. My attention has been called to a statement as to the disposal of a cargo of herring as manure at North Shields on Friday last, but I have not been able to have the facts investigated. The provisions of the Profiteering Act do not exempt profiteering in fish from punishment, and in so far as fish is not controlled action may be taken by the President of the Board of Trade in consultation with the Food Controller. A complete scheme of price control proposals for extending at an early date the powers of Food Control Committees is at present under consideration, and it is anticipated that this scheme will enable local food authorities to adjust prices to meet the changing situation in the matter of perishable commodities.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Apart from the question of the adjustment of prices, will the Food Control Department criminally prosecute anyone who destroys food for the sake of raising the price?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes. Any case of that kind brought to the notice of the Food Controller will certainly lead to a prosecution.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Will the same principle apply to people who deliberately hold food up?

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the circulation of these statements, may I ask whether he could not cause his executive officers in those centres close to the fish-catching areas specially to make inquiries into the truth or otherwise of these statements?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes. The executive officers in the areas in question have already been instructed to make inquiries and report to the Minister on these allegations.

Mr. J. JONES: Will he tell us how many Members of this House would escape if profiteering were properly abolished?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA.

BRITISH POLICY.

Sir J. D. REES: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any announcement as regards recent developments of British policy in Persia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The text of the Anglo-Persian Agreement, signed at Tehran on 9th August, has been laid on the Table, and the hon. Member will have seen that His Majesty's Government are pledged to respect absolutely the independence and integrity of Persia, that we undertake to supply Persia with expert advisers for the various branches of their administration, and to assist them to establish a uniform military force. Furthermore, we propose to lend Persia £2,000,000 at 7 per cent., secured on the Persian Customs revenues, in order to allow the Persian Government to initiate the reforms in contemplation.
The policy of His Majesty's Government is to assist Persia to re-establish herself on a sound basis, and there is not the slightest foundation for the suspicion that His Majesty's Government propose, or that the Persian Government would have consented to, the creation of anything in the nature of a British Protectorate. The attitude of the Persian Cabinet in negotiating the present agreement, and
the impending visit of the Shah to this country, are a sufficient answer to any such insinuation. The Persian Government turned to Great Britain as its most powerful and friendly neighbour, and this country would have departed from its traditional policy of warm interest in, and regard for, the Persian Government and people, had it declined to respond to the appeal.

Captain W. BENN: Is the Treaty of 1907 abrogated?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give notice of that.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Are we to understand that this Treaty will be laid before the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should think it certainly would.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (BRITISH INTERESTS).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any information with regard to the somewhat sensational report from Mexico, or will he, if I put a Private Notice question to-morrow?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is a Private Notice question on this subject.

Major C. LOWTHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs whether the report that the British Chargé d'Affaires in Mexico has been ordered to leave by General Carranza is correct, and what steps will be taken to look after British interests in Mexico?

Mr. HARMSWORTHI: I am very sorry I did not receive any notice of this question. I cannot undertake to answer it on the spur of the moment.

Major LOWTHER: It was handed in.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

BELFAST DISTURBANCES.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether there is any statement with regard to the unprovoked attack made on 200 Belfast Nationalists returning from the
Nationalist meeting at Blackrock, outside Dundalk, on the 15th August, on their journey to the city; whether sixteen persons, including several women, were assailed at several points on the journey and compelled to go to hospital; whether this attack had not all the appearance of a prearrangement by signals, such as the blowing of whistles; whether this attack was not entirely unprovoked, as the party consisted entirely of Nationalists who had taken part in a Nationalist meeting in opposition to the Sinn Fein policy: whether immediate inquiries will be instituted by the Government to detect the organisers and inspirers of this cowardly and unprovoked attack; whether the Government has any statement to make with reference to the recent disturbances in Ireland; and whether General Hackett Paine, ex-head of the staff of Ulster Volunteers, will still be retained as head of the forces and responsible for the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act in the North of Ireland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. Henry): Iregret that, owing to the short notice which has been given, I cannot add to the information my hon. Friend has in his possession, but when I receive any information I will communicate at once with my hon. Friend. Immediate inquiries will be instituted, and every effort made to detect the organisers of the attack. So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I have no statement to make in reference to the recent disturbances, beyond what is contained in the Press, and it will be obvious to the hon. Member that the appointment of a general to take charge of the force is a matter entirely for the War Office.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much service General Hackett Paine did in France, or on any other front?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question docs not arise

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH PRICES AND PROFITS.

Ordered, That the Select Committee on High Prices and Profits have leave to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of the House.—[Captain Guest.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL,—"to amend The Shops Act, 1912, and to make further provision in relation to the hours of closing of Shops," presented by Sir KINGSLEY WOOD; to be read a second time To-marrow, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (No. 2) BILL,—"to regulate the number of Hours of Employment," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Mr. Secretary Shortt, Mr. Wardle, and Major Baird; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES COMMISSION BILL,—"to constitute a Commission to inquire into and report on minimum time rates of Wages and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Sir Auckland Geddes and Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, "That Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

LAND VALUES.

Ordered, "That Mr. Alexander Shaw be discharged from the Select Committee:

Ordered, That Mr. Wallace be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Public Works Loans Bill.
Forestry Bill [Lords].
Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill,
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill,
Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Bill,
Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill,

Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act, 1888 (Amendment), Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Profiteering Bill, with Amendments.

Amendment to—

British Mercantile Marine Uniform Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Intestate Moveable Succession (Scotland) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Consequential Amendment to—

Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, without Amendment.

Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Bill,—That they do not insist upon their Amendments to the Agricultural Land Sales (Restriction of Notices to Quit) Bill to which this House has disagreed.

Orders of the Day — TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL POSITION.

PRIME MINISTER'S REVIEW.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve o'clock and at its rising do adjourn until Wednesday, 22nd October, and that To-morrow Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put.
In moving the Motion which stands in my name, I propose, with the leave of the House, to review the trade and industrial position of this country. The country, of which I have to take a survey, is so very wide and so sweeping that it will be impossible for me in the picture to do more than note the broader Aspects of the landscape. I have received many suggestions as to what I should say. I do not know of any Minister who has ever been more kindly treated in that respect. I shall do my best not to disappoint my kind assistants, but I am afraid it will be quite impossible for me to make any declarations with regard to some of the questions on which I am invited to speak to-day.
I propose to deal only with the trade and industrial position. That will include a review of the coal-mining industry in this country, and certain proposals which have been made in respect of it. I think that is quite as much as any speaker can possibly survey in the course of a single speech, and it may turn out to be even more than that. There are certain advantages in making the review now rather than at an earlier period of the year. Earlier in the year there was a good deal of obscurity, and there were a great many uncertainties in the situation—uncertainties that have since been cleared up. During the time I was at the Peace Conference, I had the privilege of meeting a good many experts from many lands, and debating and discussing with them the whole of the industrial position throughout the world. Now that I recall some of the things that they predicted, I can sec that not even the astutest among them foresaw exactly the course that events have taken. Many things they feared
have never occurred; many apprehensions have been dispelled by events. On the other hand, there are many circumstances, to which they did not attach importance, which events have shown to be of a magnitude of which all Governments must take note. Both from the bright and the gloomy side, I cannot say that any expert could, or at any rate did, accurately forecast the course of events six months ago. That is one advantage.

APPEAL FOR SUGGESTIONS.

4.0 P.M.

The other advantage is that I am making my statement on behalf of the Government on the eve of the Adjournment, and I propose, after reviewing the situation, to place before the House and the country a series o suggestions and proposals which the Government have formulated to deal with many of the difficulties that have arisen. They are put forward with a view to discussion. They are put forward with a view to enabling Members to consult with their Constituents, and with others who have first-hand knowledge of the business complexities of this and other countries, and so to come back and to assist in improvement by the adoption of some suggestions, and the elimination of others which may not appear, on reconsideration, to be worthy of adoption or to have a strengthening tendency, or which may appear inadequate to the needs of the situation. All I am going to ask at this stage is that the country—realising the gravity of the position—will give a fair and an impartial consideration to the suggestions put forward. I ask everybody to realise that the future of the land depends upon the way in which these difficulties are faced, and the way in which Parliament attempts to grapple with these questions. I think it necessary that I should state that. I am afraid I shall be disappointing to some. I noticed to-day that one egregious journalist, who has been pursuing a kind of Corsican vendetta, publishes columns of denunciations of a speech which has never yet been delivered, and of proposals that have never yet been put before the country. If that be the spirit in which these proposals are to be considered, I really despair of our ever coming to the solution of a problem which more deeply concerns the prosperity and life of this country than any of the problems we have ever considered in this House. I do urge that all personal con-
siderations should be set aside when we are dealing with big questions of this kind—that we should remember that this is our common country, and that we should do our best to help.

CHANGE FROM PEACE TO WAR CONDITIONS.

Before I begin a closer examination of the trade and industrial position, I should like to say one word about those who seemed to expect that the moment the War was over, we should instantly return to the normal. Nay, more than that, that things should be even better than before the War, and that immediately on the click of the switch of Peace, everything would leap back again to the normal, and be exactly as it was in 1914. Finance normal! trade normal! Industry normal! Production normal! Labour normal! No man who imagines that can have realised for a moment the magnitude of the disturbing events of the last five years. Certainly he can never have read the lessons of history. It is necessary that I should just remind those who still take that view what really has happened. If a house be shaken or demolished you may build a better structure instead of it, but the new structure does not pop out of the ground like Aladdin's Palace on the rubbing of Aladdin's lamp; you have to build it! The direct cost of the War to the world was £40,000,000,000, spent, not in reproductive enterprise, but spent largely in destruction. How can we expect to return to the normal immediately that expenditure is over 2 Why, if 40,000,000 able-bodied young men were to take a holiday for four years—if they were withdrawn from the task of reproduction and wealth-creation, in Europe and America, and simply took a holiday for that period, during which they had had £1,000 placed at their disposal to expend—it would give some sort of a notion of what war on this gigantic scale means. But nobody would expect at the end of the four years everything to be the same. Nobody would expect to have the habit of industry come back immediately, and one would certainly expect that the difficulties which had arisen in consequence of that would take some time to get over. I want those who feel that we ought to have been exactly as we were in 1914 the moment Peace was signed just to realise what has happened. After all, most troubles of life come from ignoring the obvious.

What are the difficulties that arose immediately on the cessation of hostilities? Let me summarise them. First of all, there is the change from war to peace conditions. I remember when I was Minister of Munitions how long it took the industries of this country to change from peace to war conditions. It will take them just as long to adapt the machinery and the workshops of this country to peace conditions, after they have been working on war material for two or three years. There was a widespread doubt as to prices. There was an expectation that there would be a great fall in prices except in iron and steel, because everybody anticipated that the withdrawal of the subsidies would result in an increase of price. There is nothing more paralyzing than a doubt of that kind for trade. Contractors were shy and even shuddered at orders. Orders were often even shyer. No one quite knew what was going to happen in respect to prices. That had a very paralysing effect upon business. There was a shortage of labour owing to the fact that demobilisation necessarily took time. There was a shortage of material. There were great transport difficulties—with which I propose to deal later. Then there were stories of great accumulated stocks of manufactured goods in foreign countries which, on the signature of Peace, would rush into this country and depress prices. My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes) and his predecessor had to deal with that situation, and to restore confidence. My right hon. Friend took the necessary steps, which turned out to be eminently successful. He imposed a certain number of restrictions on imports, by Orders terminating on 1st September next. That gave the community a sense of security, at any rate, up till 1st September. They could manufacture and deal in goods without the fear of this great inrush of accumulated stock coming into the country. The contractor could safely launch out without fear of the ice cracking under him. Then the supply of labour considerably improved. From the three Services—Navy, Army, and Air—3,600,000 men have already been demobilised. Out of that enormous mass of able-bodied men there are only 350,000 who have not yet been absorbed in industry. I think that is a great achievement, and my right hon. Friends are very much to be congratulated upon the successful way they have dealt with this very difficult problem.

WORST TROUBLES TO FACE.

Trade has steadily improved. But we have still our worst troubles to face. Let us have the facts with regard to those matters, because, unless we realise what the facts are, it will be impossible either to propose or to consider remedies. Let us face them without any fear. May I also appeal that we should also face then without considering how they will affect opinions already formed? That is very vital.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Or principles!

The PRIME MINISTER: Or principles—yes; but let us have the facts to begin with, and we will consider afterwards how we shall apply our principles to those facts. Surely the first thing is to get at the facts. Do not let us say, "I cannot accept that fact, because, if I do, it will alter my opinion." Let us begin with the facts. The first fact, then, is—I am not sure that the conclusions that will be drawn will suit any particular school of thought, I cannot help that—the first out standing fact is this: the alarming adverse trade balance. Before the War, we had the greatest international trade in the world, looking at the size of the country, looking at its con figuration, looking at its resources. It is a country which must necessarily depend upon international trade—always must. Before the War, if you took our export of manufactured goods, we sold £9 per head of the population of the United Kingdom, Germany sold £5 10s. per head of her population, France sold £4 4s. per head of her population to customers across the sea. The United States of America sold £2 10s, per head of her population. If you add to that the carrying trade—we did half the carrying trade of the world!—if you add to that insurance, commissions, banking, all the international ser vices which we rendered in an exceptional degree, you will find—

Mr. HOUSTON: Coal?

The PRIME MINISTER: Coal is in the £9 per head. I have included it in the manufactured goods. My hon. Friend is quite right in his reminder, but for the moment I have called it "manufactures."

ADVERSE TRADE BALANCE.

If you add those services you will find that the disparity between us and our very
nearest rival is very great, and that shows the extent to which we depended on our international trade. It amounts to £45 per household of the United Kingdom. Realise how important the international trade, the trade across the seas was to the United Kingdom. We cannot prosper, we cannot even exist without recovering that trade and without maintaining it, I go beyond that, and I say without increasing it. How do we stand? Before the War our imports exceeded our exports by £150,000,000. In January last our exports were £47,000,000, and this last July our exports were £65,000,000, but our imports less re-exports in July were £141,000,000. If that were the rate that we maintained, instead of an adverse balance of £150,000,000 we should have an adverse-balance of very nearly £1,000,000,000. But take the average throughout the year—there were reasons why the exports for July should be down; I am sorry to say there were labour troubles—the adverse balance will be between £700,000,000 and £800,000,000. Our adverse balance before the War was £150,000,000; our adverse balance at the present rate—and I must get this fact home to the mind of everybody in the United Kingdom, because unless it is brought home there is no salvation for this country—is nearly £800,000,000.

How did we reach £150,000,000 before the War? We had advanced £4,000,600,000 to the world, and we were getting an interest of something like £200,000,000 per annum. Then our shipping trade, our insurance, commissions and other services came to another £150,000,000, and so we got invisible exports amounting to £350,000,000. Therefore we had a balance on that account of £200,000,000 in our favour. On mere buying and selling there was an adverse balance of £150,000,000, but on the whole balance of trade, our finance and shipping business, we made a profit of £200,000,000 a year. We had a balance of £200,000,000 a year in our trading with the world.

What happened to that? We reinvested it almost every year, and the result was that the indebtedness of the world to us was increasing rapidly every year, more especially during the last seven or eight years before the War. What has happened since the War? We have sold £1,000,000,000 of our foreign securities, in payment for war material for ourselves and our Allies. We have borrowed pro-
bably another £1,200,000,000 from America more particularly, and Canada, for the same purpose. It is perfectly true that the Allies owe us a sum that I cannot recall for the moment, but a very considerable figure. I think, in round figures, it amounts to £1,800,000,000. That includes Russia. We are debtors to the West, we are creditors to the East. The rising sun is our debtor and the sunset is our creditor, and as Russia is included in the first, I am afraid the stocks of the dawn are not particularly good security at the present moment.

An HON. MEMBER: Change your policy!

The PRIME MINISTER: No policy would make that a very good security. Let the House take the summary. As far as receipts are concerned, from our foreign investments we are down £100,000,000. We have got to pay an adverse balance on trade of £800,000,000. We must bridge that chasm, for at the bottom of it is ruin. We are building the temporary bridge now by borrowing, not State borrowing but by traders borrowing,—by running into debt for raw materials and for food. That will only add to the catastrophe by your advancing further on the bridge, which is a shaky one, and advancing with increasing weight along it. That is the position with regard to international trade.

NATIONAL INDEBTEDNESS.

I have given the figures with regard to our averse trade, balance, and I now come to another feature. The national indebtedness is another disquieting feature. Before the War our National Debt was £645,000,000, and we were disturbed by it. Our interest and Sinking Fund was £24,500,000. To-day our National Debt is £7,800,000,000. Against that we have the indebtedness of the Allies and the Dominions, and India, of £1,800,000,000, but the interest and Sinking Fund together would amount to £400,000,000. That is our debt, and instead of costing £24,000,000 it will involve an annual charge of £400,000,000. Pensions, an absolutely new charge, amount to £100,000,000 per annum. I am going to say something about finance later on, but I want for the purposes of a review of the position to assume that you cut the cost of the Army and Navy down to the lowest figure any sane person can figure. Assume that for the moment. Still the pay is
treble, the cost of material is double, and whatever you may cut down to within the limits of safety, the cost must be enormously increased. Before the War it was £80,000,000. Then there is another factor. A good deal has been said about public expenditure, but there is not nearly enough said about private expenditure, which in the aggregate is a much more formidable figure. I say nothing of the expenditure due to a rational uplifting of the standard of living, but there is another expenditure which would not be justified under the circumstances of the moment. There seems a temptation to rush into prodigality, and I should not be doing my duty in reviewing the position of things unless I alluded to that.

DIMINISHED PRODUCTION.

To meet these conditions of an adverse trade balance which is alarming, an increased expenditure which is inevitable from the reasons I have given—apart altogether from any criticism which may be directed against this Department or another—pensions, sinking fund and interest on debts—there is but one resource, and that is increased production. What are the facts there?

Mr. ADAMSON: What about the Army and Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am going to discuss finance later on. I am only now giving a review. What are the facts? There is almost a sensational decrease in output. The output is less than ever, and that is true of every branch of production except agriculture, where you have had an increase during the War. I have inquired in every direction, and the output is sensibly diminished in every branch of industry. We are spending more, we are earning less; we are consuming more, we are producing less. Those are the facts of the situation, and it cannot last. Take coal. It enters into everything, almost every form of production, every manufacture, iron and steel, textile, shipping. In coal you have a most alarming fact. There could be no more serious blow at the business, the trade and the industry of this country than a diminution in the output of coal. Our trade depends more upon it than upon any other commodity. It fetches and carries, it goes to the shop, and fetches the goods, carries them back and pays for them. Food, raw material-coal fetches them, and coal pays for them. If you go down to the Argentine to fetch wheat for bread, you pay largely for it
with coal. In addition to that you pay the outward journey with coal, and the man who sells you the wheat pays you half the price of the cost of carrying.
Where there is a diminution in coal it means that food must go up in price, that raw material must go up in price, and that our shipping will be hit. Every industry will be hit, our international trade will be ruined. Therefore, there can be no more serious fact in the whole of our international trade than the depression in the output of coal. Before the War 287,000,000 tons were produced per annum in this country. At the present rate there will be 200,000,000 tons produced. That is a diminution of 87,000,000 tons per annum in the output of coal. I believe last year the output was 220,000,000 tons. That is not due to the fact that you have fewer men engaged in the coal business than you had in 1914. On the contrary, you had 1,110,000 in 1914, and you have 1,141,000 engaged in the same industry now, so that there has been an increase in the numbers employed. With regard to the price, there has been an increase which is most disconcerting for all those who are engaged in any industry that is dependent largely upon coal. A ton of coal raised in 1913 cost 10s. at the pit head; on 16th July last it cost 26s. The fact is that we are not producing or handling as much per man as we were producing or handling on the 4th August, 1914. This reduction in output is the outstanding feature of the moment. It is one which causes the greatest anxiety and apprehension, and unless by concerted effort it be removed, the future is indeed dark. It is partly responsible for the abnormally high price which is the inevitable outcome where the supply is less than the demand, and it handicaps us in competition with other countries where production is greater and cheaper. I have had reports recently that in the United States, where wages are higher and the hours of labour no longer, the labour cost in proportion to the article produced is less. If that be the case, then competition is impossible, and let me say at once no tariff would ever remedy that.
I should like to say a word about the effect upon the exchanges. Unless you nay the adverse balance by means of goods it must have the effect of depreciating the purchasing power of your coin. At the present moment in the United States of America the British sovereign is worth
17s. 6d. [HON. MEMBERS: "Less."] Well, that strengthens the argument. If it be less than 17s. 6d. it is what I have anticipated, as I shall point out later on, that is due to the fact that we are not paying for the goods we are getting—either food or raw materials—by goods that we are producing here.

COUNTRY HOT PAYING ITS WAY.

The fact that the imports at the present moment are almost exclusively food and raw materials makes it more serious. Under the Order that is still in force most manufactured goods are excluded until the 1st September, so that the adverse balance is upon the actual essentials of existence and of business in this country. That must be redressed if we are to keep our place as a great and prosperous community The only remedy is to ensure that there is an increased quantity of goods available for export at a price that will enable us to increase our international trade and pay by export instead of running into debt. The cardinal feature of the momnt—I am sorry to have to use these phrases, but they are calculated and they have to be considered—is that we are not paying our way. That is the most serious statement that you can make to a business man. It is the most serious statement that you can make to a country. We shall never pay our way until we increase production in this country. If we do not do that now, we shall be driven by the stern scourge of events later on either to increase protion, or to reduce the standard of living in this country to a lower level than ever. I can see no other alternative except quitting the country, for which the people have fought so grandly during four years.

Let me examine the reasons for diminished production, because unless you get at the cause of the diminished production you cannot find the remedy. The first one I am glad to say is vanishing, or almost vanishing. It is the change from war to peace conditions. The machinery is being adapted for that purpose, and I do not think at the moment that is a cause which is responsible for even a perceptible percentage of the underproduction. Another is the renewal, the repair and the cleaning of machinery. All these machines have been run during the War to the utmost limit. There was no time for renewing, there was hardly time for repairing, and there was quite inadequate time for cleaning. That
is a process which has been going on for the last three months, but it has slowed down very considerably owing to the lack of labour.

Let us take a third cause. Let us talk quite frankly about it. If the House will not mind, we must talk frankly without seeking offence. When a country comes to this condition we must talk frankly to each other.

WORLD SUFFERING FROM SHELL-SHOCK.

Everybody is suffering from the terrible strain of the War. Nerves are jagged and sore. I am not sure that we make sufficient allowance for that and for the nervous reaction. There is no surer sign of ruffled nerves than the general disposition to grumble and grouse about everything and everybody. Everybody is complaining of everybody else. Everybody is complaining of the management, whether of the country or of business, and trade unionists complain of their leaders.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: We will get over our troubles.

The PRIME MINISTER: We will get over all our troubles if we only face them as cheerfully as my hon. Friend.

Mr. ADAMSON: And people are complaining of the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree. They complain of Governments; they complain of the existing order of things; they complain of Providence. Men do not pull their full weight when the harness frets. Gradually we shall pass away from that state of things if we exercise common sense and forbearance—forbearance not merely on the part of the grumblers, tout also on the part of those who are grumbled at. If they have the good sense and the humour to appreciate the situation, and not to get too upset, but to realise that it is the sort of passing mood which you get on board ship when you have a week's sickness, and when everybody grumbles, it will pass away. But we must exercise forbearance. In time most will have forgotten their fretfulness. Those who remember at all will be a trifle ashamed, and there will be only a few, a wretched remnant, who will be always disappointed that they were unable to take advantage of the discontent either to upset the Government or the existing order and institutions of the country. All that will pass away. It is prevalent
through out the world. It is not merely here; it is in France, it is in Germany; and to a less extent in the United States of America. The world is suffering from shell-shock on a great scale, and the habitude of industry has not been quite recovered. We do not make enough allowance for that. This is one of the most important contributory causes to the slackness manifest in the workshops of the world. When you have led a different life, a good deal of it wasted, it is difficult in two, three, or four years after that quite to get into the frame of mind to make you stand by a machine for eight or nine hours a day.

CONCERTED SLOWING DOWN.

But I wish that were all. It is true that hours of labour have also been reduced. One of the arguments for the reduction of hours of labour that I have heard in this House for the last twenty or thirty years was that you would not, by reason of the reduction, have less production, but, on the contrary, that you might increase it, and that you would certainly improve its quality. I heard it many a time when I used to vote for the. Eight Hours Bill for Miners; I heard it on the Seven Hours Movement. I have heard it whenever there has been any discussion on the reduction of hours. Unfortunately, the fact is that, with that substantial reduction in the hours of labour, you have had a reduction in output almost in mathematical proportion to the diminution in the number of hours.

Mr. ADAMSON: Do you mean in all trades?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, in most of the trades. As far as I have been able to discover, it is true of almost all the trades where there has been a reduction. It may be merely temporary. Are we quite sure there is not something morel? Is there not an element in some trades, and among a certain number of men engaged in those trades, of deliberate and concerted slowing down? I do not think that that is confined to labour. I have had some evidence of it among employers and among managers. It is a severe charge to bring against employers that they are "ca'ing canny," but in some industries I have had evidence of that. It may be due to trade conditions; it may be due to other reasons which I will not investigate. For the moment I am simply taking the facts. There is evidence of
slackness. The effort has got to be quickened, tightened; employers, managers, foremen, workmen, must put their backs into it, to save the country.

A RUINOUS FALLACY.

One reason why labour is being induced to lend countenance to that policy is a reason which is creditable to its intentions and its desires. It is due to the fallacy that the less you work the more work there will be for others. There never was a more fatal error. There never was a more fatal fallacy. You have only got to look at the coal trade. The reduction in the [...]out of coal is at the present moment depriving people of employment. If it go on, it will throw hundreds of thousands out of employment in this country. You have only got to work it out to its inevitable consequence, and you will find that deliberately to reduce output means in the end all-round unemployment on a gigantic scale. It is important, therefore, that that fallacy should be exploded, especially by those who speak with authority to labour. It is difficult for them to speak. [LABOUR MEMBERS: "No, no; we can speak out all right!"] I know the courage of my hon. Friends, and I am perfectly certain that they will do so, because they realise as well as anyone in this House that it is a very dangerous policy to pursue and encourage, and a disastrous one for labour. The price of food will go up, the cost of material will go up, and, what is still worse, we shall not get food for this country, because you cannot live for ever on borrowed food. You will not get raw material to this country. There will be no work for those who manipulate and transform and transfigure it into the beautiful things into which British hands can transfigure any material. It is a disastrous policy for all classes. That is why I appeal to employers and to workmen to get rid of this ruinous fallacy, which seems to possess the minds of hundreds of thousands at the present time.

RAILWAY AND DOCK CONGESTION.

There are other causes which are contributing. One is the block on the railways and in the docks. That is a very important problem. One reason for the block is that the railways are not in perfect repair, and cannot be repaired. Locomotives and wagons have not been kept in repair; cranes are out of repair;
the nation was too busy to attend to them; it was fighting for its life, and they have all suffered from neglect. We have not been able to keep up the number of wagons; we ought to have increased them. Thousands, nay, tens of thousands of wagons and locomotives were sent to France. Many of them are destroyed; many of them are still therein the essential work of clearing up the country and for the Army of Occupation. The result is the block on the railways and in the docks. Traders also are partly responsible. It strikes me that in the end I shall not have a friend left. I have had to say something to labour, to employers, to managers, and now I have to say something to the trader. The trader is not discharging his goods and cargoes from wagons as rapidly as he ought to do. He is using them more than ever as a warehouse on wheels. He is sending goods in what are called small packages, instead of filling the wagons to their full capacity; so that, when you have got the wagons and locomotives of this country reduced in number, you have only two-thirds of the capacity for the rest.

Mr. THOMAS: Encourage coast-wise traffic.

The PRIME MINISTER: No doubt coast-wise traffic is not being used to the extent that it used to be, but that is a pretty long story. You will never do that until you put up the railway rates, until the increases in railway wages are paid, not out of the taxpayers' pockets, but by a direct charge upon those who use the railways. We have only just passed the Ministry of Transport Bill, which gives power to deal with it.

Mr. JOHN JONES: It is the other people—those who have interests.

The PRIME MINISTER: If I begin to discuss these things I shall never come to the end. I think I have dealt with the causes of the reduction in output. Now I come to the remedy. I have dealt with the change from war to peace work, with the repair and renewal of plant. The block on the railways will be dealt with under the Ministry of Transport Act. My right hon. Friend the new Minister of Transport is equipped with full powers to deal with that situation, and I have no doubt at all that, with his usual energy, he will lose no time in coming to grips with it. But in order to enable him to deal effectively with it, he must have the assistance of
everybody. He must have the assistance of the trader, of officials on the railways, of officials in the docks, and of the general public. When that is done, I have no doubt at all that he will be able to deal quite effectively with the position.
With regard to war-weariness and the exhaustion which comes from strain, that can only be cured by the effort of the people themselves of all classes. There is no recovery without conscious effort on the part of the patient himself. It is a matter of will and of good will. They must be taught to realise how vital to the nation and to themselves is production. Here I am going to make an appeal to hon. Members of this House and to all those who have the ear of the public outside, whether in the Press or on the platform, to bring home the vital importance of all these questions to the minds of the people in every trade and industry of the country. Unless they realise how essential are all these things to the interests of the nation, to their own interests, I do not believe that it will be possible to get all classes to pull themselves together. I know what can be done in that way; I have seen it done during the War. The people had only to be convinced and persuaded of what was necessary, and they did it. That was true of every rank in life, and I am sure the same thing applies at the present moment. All these facts have got to be brought home to men throughout the country, in order to enable them to shake off this fatal lethargy and slackness which are at present depressing production, and, by depressing production, imperilling the vital interests of the nation. But we must do more than that.

AN UNDERSTANDING WITH LABOUR.

Labour demands an understanding as to the future, and, I think, the nation must come to an understanding with Labour. What Labour says is—I have made a good deal of direct inquiry from those who are in a position to know—"We realise all that you tell us about production. We are not holding up society. We do not believe in direct action"—I believe that is true of the vast majority of the working classes—"but we are as human as anybody else, and we do not work well, any more than does anybody else, unless we work with a will; and we cannot work with a will unless the conditions of our work are fair and satisfactory." The advice I give to all those who are concerned in the future of British industry—
and we all are—is to look that statement honestly and fearlessly in the face, to examine it and see what there is in it. We must examine it in no spirit of challenge, in no spirit of resentment, but in a spirit of justice and fair-play, and, I may say, in the new spirit of comradeship which has been created by the War—that spirit of comradeship which arose from a common sacrifice. Let us examine the claims, the grievances, and the complaints of Labour, not merely anew, but in a new spirit. Until that be done, and until a satisfactory answer be given, I do not believe we shall get a real answer to the problem of production. I make the appeal, not merely to Employers, but to Labour. I ask the employers to examine the claims of Labour in that new spirit, but I ask Labour to press their claims in the same spirit. Then, I think, an understanding will be arrived at. Let us demonstrate to the world once more that Britain, beyond all lands, has the traditional power of reaching a solution of her most baffling problems, without resort to anarchy, but by appeal to the common sense of most, and in a spirit of fair-play.

INCREASED WAGES—REDUCED HOURS.

5.0 P.M.

What are the complaints of Labour? I might almost say, with regard to some of them, what were the complaints of Labour? The first is that the hours were too long for the human frame to endure, or that they were inadequate to provide the needful leisure to enjoy the amenities or to acquire the refinements of life. In the second place, the complaint was that the wages were insufficient in a multitude of cases to sustain the strength and vigour of the worker, to maintain the comfort of his home, and to bring up a family worthy, physically and mentally, to become citizens of a great Empire. Let us confess—whatever we have done in the last two or three years to redress these wrongs—that for a generation we did not pay the heed to them we ought to have done. There were too many sweated trades. There were hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men on the 4th August, 1914, who were labouring hard for wages that were a disgrace to the Flag for which they went to fight. There has been a notable advance during the last two or three years, I am pleased to say, both in the hours of labour and in wages. The trouble is that suspicions were aroused and temper was exasperated by delay. The air of the
workshop was thick with it, the machinery was clogged with it, no lubricant could assist it. There is no doubt that the delays which had occurred detracted from the value of the concessions when they came. A good sound piece of advice to men of business and statesmen is: "Beware of arrears." Still, Labour within the last two or three years has made enormous gains. On an average the wages have more than doubled; and the hours of labour have been diminished to forty-four or forty-eight a week. I would only warn labour, if I may do so quite respectfully—

Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that wages have been more than doubled, but the cost of living also has been more than doubled.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree; but perhaps my right hon. Friend will take the two statements together. That is why I put them together. The wages, it is true, have more than doubled, but the hours of labour have been very considerably diminished. If there had been purely the increase in the wages, without the diminution in the hours, I agree that Labour would practically be exactly where it was at the beginning of the War. But my right hon. Friend must take the two statements together. When he takes what is earned by the hour now, it is considerably higher, as he knows. What Labour is doing at this moment is converting these extra hours into overtime, so that the actual wage they are earning is considerably more than double what it was at the beginning of the War. I may just tell my right hon. Friend that these reductions in hours and these increases in wages will be impossible to maintain if production remain at its present level. My right hon. Friends agree. That is obvious. The War taught military men that it was easier to capture a position than to retain it. That is a lesson for Labour. They have captured much more advanced positions than they have ever held before.

Mr. LUNN: Not the essential one yet, which you have missed.

The PRIME MINISTER: Which is that?

Mr. LUNN: My point is that the complaint of Labour is against producing to-day for the prodigality of private individuals.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should not have thought that applies to the railways, where they have been working at a loss. There is not much prodigality there.

Mr. J. JONES: The shareholders have lost nothing.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that when they are working for the public there will be a great change in the attitude of Labour. I do not suggest that the last word has been said about hours or about wages.

INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

There has been an Industrial Council set up of representative employers and representative workmen who have been sitting for months examining together all these various problems—the problem of hours, the problem of wages, the problem of unemployment, the problem of control—and I am very glad to say that they have reached a very fair measure of agreement upon two or three of those problems. Among others, they have reached an agreement upon the problem of hours and the problem of wages. A measure has been prepared by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour (Sir R. Horne) to deal with both hours and wages. He introduced it to-day at the commencement of Business, and it will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. It represents the agreement arrived at between employers and workmen on this important Council. They have taken weeks, I might even say months, to consider it. They have examined it in every detail. In substance it means the declaration of a forty-eight-hour week for all the industries of the country, with two or three exceptions—domestic and outdoor servants, save where employed for the purpose of gain, masters and crew of seagoing ships, and persons employed in agriculture. That is for reasons which are perfectly obvious. It also provides for a living wage for those who are engaged in industry in this country. These measures will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow, and they are, I think, the most important measures dealing with Labour problems which have ever been submitted to the judgment of this House. An opportunity will be given during the Vacation for employers and workmen to examine them thoroughly, and by the time the House resumes they will be in a position to give their opinion upon the provisions.

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN WORKMEN AND EMPLOYERS.

What more ought to be done? Steps ought to be taken to humanise industry, by the improvement of the conditions in the workshops. I am not sure that we are as advanced as even many of the work shops in Germany in this respect. We must secure the co-operation of Labour in industry, and make the workmen feel that they have an interest in the industry—not management, because you cannot manage a business by a committee. Finance and the commercial side of industry you cannot manage by a committee. But, apart from that, there are two aspects of the question which deserve further consideration. The first is that the co-operation of workmen ought to be secured to a larger degree on the industrial side of an industry—the conditions under which the industry is carried on—which means not merely wages and hours, but a multitude of other matters which affect the comfort and efficiency of the workmen. The Committees which bear your name, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with which you will always be honourably associated, represent a great advance in this respect. National Committees—Whitley Committees, if I may use the phrase—have already been set up in industries representing something like 2,250,000 of the work men of this country. Unfortunately, the local committees, the district committees, and the works committees have not yet een set up. I could have wished it had been possible to begin at the bottom, and work up to the top, rather than to begin at the top, and work down to the bottom, because until that co-operation be secured in the works, I do not think the aim you had in mind, Sir, will ever be achieved.

PROFIT-SHARING.

The second point is that it will be desirable, if possible, to give workers a more real financial interest in the success of the industry. Unfortunately, owing not to the merits of the proposal, but rather to the circumstances under which it was adopted profit-sharing has been discredited in trade union circles, and it is very difficult to get back upon an old suspicion. I wish that the problem of securing an interest for the worker in the business could be considered anew apart from these prejudices. It ought not to be used, and it must be clear that it is not to be used merely as a weapon to fight trade unions.

There have been many suggestions. One is that the workers should have an interest in the increase of output. With regard to these two problems—the problem of the co-operation of the worker in the conditions of the industry and the problem of giving the worker a more direct financial interest in making the industry a success—I wish that employers and workmen would once more, meeting together, discussing the matter together with such aid as a Government Department can give in the circumstances, make another real effort to secure the joint action—I dislike using the term joint partnership—of the worker and the employer in seeing that the industry upon the success of which both of them depend, and upon the success of which the whole life of the community depends, is made one which will bring prosperity to themselves and to all classes of the nation. Until we secure greater co-operation and a greater feeling in the breast of the worker that the prosperity of the industry is something which concerns him, it will be difficult to induce him to regard with the same sympathy appeals for an increase in the production of a particular trade.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS.

The other branch of this problem to which we have given consideration is that of unemployment. Unemployment, I am afraid, is as inevitable as bad seasons, and it is the nightmare of every worker's life. When it comes, large numbers pass immediately from comparative plenty to penury, and the mere prospect of it frightens the workman. When that time comes, he should not be left to the humiliating expedient of soup tickets, which reveal the extent of the suffering, without sensibly alleviating it. We have already established unemployment benefit for certain precarious trades, and we recently extended the application of its provisions. But the amount is hopelessly inadequate, and the trades which it covers are only a percentage of those engaged in industry in this country.

The industry of the country as a whole ought to protect its workers against the prospect of this terrible calamity. There are many ways of dealing with it. There is the way in which it is dealt with in the cotton industry, which, whenever there is a bad time coming, makes arrangements for short time, in order to avoid dismissals. But if dismissals come, men who are pre-
pared to work ought not to suffer starvation, and there must be an allowance. Until something be done I am afraid it is idle to go to the workers, and try to convince them of the fallacy of the doctrine that less work means more employment. Fear is fatal to reason, and you must remove that apprehension in the mind of the worker before you can convince him of the danger of the course to which many are now endeavouring to entice him. I am sorry that up to the present on this subject of unemployment, we have failed to secure agreement among the members of the Joint Committee of the National Industrial Conference. I am not sure that the division is one between employer and employed. It is rather a difficulty of trades. I am not persuaded that we can succeed in getting agreement. It is a question of workers in trades where unemployment is comparatively small helping the workers in trades where unemployment is a larger element. It is an appeal to the solidarity of labour, and that is an appeal that certainly ought not to fall on deaf ears. It may be the duty of the Government, in the event of complete failure of agreement among the industries, to put forward proposals in the name of the whole community.

With regard to improvements in the social conditions of Labour generally, Parliament this year has been busy and has passed a Housing Act, an Act for the purchase and acquisition of land, and an Act to enable those who are setting up houses also to provide transit for the worker to and from his work. One of the difficulties of providing houses is that you have no sites in the cities. You have, therefore, to take the worker out into the country if you are going to get houses fit for his accommodation. In order to do that, you must have some means of carrying him back and forward from his work, and I trust the combination of the Housing Act, the Land Acquisition Act and the Ministry of Transport Act will have the effect of solving this problem. I shall be very surprised if, when the House meet, we are not able to report, in spite of the fact that these Bills have only just become Acts of Parliament, very substantial progress on the lines of providing housing accommodation for the working classes of this country.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

I have dealt with most of the general questions which affect Labour, and now I come to a very important industry which concerns so many of my hon. Friends who sit opposite me. I come to deal with the question of mines. At the beginning of the year we were threatened with a great industrial upheaval in the mines, an upheaval which would have seriously retarded the re-establishment of industry, and the Government invited the House of Commons to appoint a Commission, presided over by a very able judge, to investigate the subject in dispute. There were two separate classes of subjects referred to this Commission. One was an immediate question—the question of the hours of labour. The others were great questions of policy relating to the conditions of the industry and the best method of working it—its organisation, questions of waste in the present system of working, the social conditions under which the miners live, nationalisation of minerals, State ownership and management of mines, and co-operation of the workers in the control of the industry. These were gigantic questions of policy. Some of my hon. Friends and many outside seem to assume that when a Government appoints a Commission, it is in honour bound to accept all its recommendations and to put them into operation. I never heard of that doctrine in the whole history of the House of Commons. There have been multitudes of questions referred to Royal Commissions. There have been some whose recommendations have been legislated upon, and there have been many in which this was not done. But even taking those where the Government and Parliament immediately took action, it has never been suggested that the Legislature was bound to take every recommendation exactly in the form in which it was made.

Mr. ADAMSON: Unless the Government promised to do so.

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite so, but they did not. I introduced that Bill, and I was present when it went through. I have looked through all the speeches I have made on the subject, and I never uttered a syllable which would commit the Government, and certainly not Parliament—which I had no right to do—to accept any recommendation made by the Royal Commission upon every subject
referred to it. I said the Government would give respectful consideration, and attach due weight to everything the Commission reported. That I have done. There are certain questions which you can refer to arbitration—questions of wages and of hours of labour—and the Government treated the Sankey Commission as practically the arbitrator in respect of the questions of hours and of wages. But when it came to a great question of policy, that was a totally different matter.

Mr. J. JONES rose—

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not object to interruptions as a rule, and I know the hon. Member's is not a discourteous one, but he had better allow me to complete my statement. That would have been an abrogation of the functions of Parliament and of Government. I have a high opinion of the capacity of the Chair man (Mr. Justice Sankey), and I deeply deprecate any attacks which have been made on him. He is one of the ablest and most highly respected judges on the Bench. His task was a very invidious and a very difficult one, and I think he deserves the gratitude of the State for the trouble he took. But there were one or two incidents in the proceedings which I am bound to say detract a good deal from confidence in the findings of that Commission. Take one, which I think is unprecedented. Two of its members left the seat of judgment to go into the witness box. It is difficult to treat with respect decisions arrived at by Commissioners who take that view of their functions. They were there to deliberate upon very vital matters. They were supposed to reserve judgment, whatever were their preconceived opinions, until they had heard the whole of the evidence. What happens? They go into the witness box and express an opinion. It was a most regrettable incident.

GOVERNMENT CONCLUSIONS.

The Government have devoted a good deal of attention to the Report and to the evidence of this Commission, and I propose to give the House the conclusions at which we have arrived, and the proposals we are prepared to make in respect of them to the House of Commons on its reassembling. The Government accepts the policy of State purchase of mineral rights in coal, on which subject all the Reports of the Royal Commission were perfectly unanimous. The Government have been deeply
impressed by the evidence tendered to the Commission with respect to the unsatisfactory social conditions under which the miners have been compelled to carry on their industry in some parts of the country. They hold that a reasonable Standard of living should be secured to the miners and their families; that the deplorable housing conditions which prevail in some of the coalfields of the country should be remedied as rapidly as possible, and that every effort should by made to improve the comfort and amenities of the miners and their families. I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Lunn), who smiles, that this is not merely a statement of sympathy.

Mr. LUNN: I think it is empty.

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will wait, he will see that it is not empty. I hope he will wait before he comes to a conclusion; otherwise he will be like the Commissioners who gave evidence before coming to an official decision. He will see that in the very next point I deal with the matter in a practical way. We propose that a fund should be raised for that particular purpose. If mining royalties continue, we feel that they ought to contribute towards the well-being of those who work the mines, those who risk their lives in working them, and, as the Government propose to purchase mining royalties, they feel that the mineral wealth of the country ought not to shirk its responsibility for the welfare of the people upon whose work its utility depends.
We propose that a deduction should be made out of the purchase value, for the purpose of creating a fund to improve the social conditions and the conditions of life among the miners of the country. That is not an empty proposal. It is a substantial contribution. It is proposed that schemes should be submitted for the social improvement of the mining areas. These schemes can be considered by those who administer the fund, and the fund can be distributed for that purpose. In Scotland the mining royalties are subject to local and county rates. To that extent they have made their contribution. In this country they have not, and an account will be taken of the difference between the conditions in the two countries in that respect.

Mr. BRACE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amount?

The PRIME MINISTER: We will submit the actual amount to the House, and I think the right hon. Gentleman had better wait for the actual figures. I am now dealing with the general scheme, but the actual figures I am not prepared to give at the moment. It will, however, be a substantial fund for the purpose. Now I come to the question of the future working of the mines.

UNIFICATION AND REORGANISATION OF COAL INDUSTRY.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated on behalf of the Government—I am not giving the actual words, but they are on record—that the Government accepted in the letter and the spirit the Interim Report of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission. In that Report there is a recommendation in favour of the unification and reorganisation of the industry. In his Final Report Mr. Justice Sankey proceeded with his interpretation of that principle. We accept the principle, but we cannot accept Mr. Justice Sankey's final interpretation. His scheme for carrying that out we cannot accept. He has a proposal for State purchase and State working of the mines. He bases his recommendation solely on the expectation that it will produce greater harmony between employer and worker in the mines. He does not recommend it, apart from that, as a business proposition. He does not say "The mines will be better worked." Apart from the question of unification and reorganisation, he bases it entirely upon the expectation that there will be increased harmony between employer and worker in the mines. But since Mr. Justice Sankey penned that Report two or three things have happened which I think would have induced him to change his mind had he had them before his mind at the time. In his Report he also recommends a scheme to avert strikes, and that is as essential a part of his proposal as his proposal for the purchase and working of the mines by the State. What is the scheme? It is not a scheme to deprive the miners of the right to strike. It is simply a scheme to provide that they shall not strike until there is inquiry by the various councils set up under the nationalising scheme. The miners in their report are prepared to accept the nationalisation proposal, but they cannot accept the proposal to avert strikes.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Where do they say that?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend cannot have read the Report.

Mr. BRACE: I do not dissent. The Miners Federation of Great Britain, which is the official authority to speak for the miners, have said most distinctly that nationalisation would tend to propagate peace in the industry.

YORKSHIRE STRIKE.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am dealing here with the Report of the miners' representatives on the Coal Commission, and they did not accept the scheme which Mr. Justice Sankey regarded as the basis of his recommendation. Now I come to my second reason. Since then we have bad the Yorkshire strike. What is the theory of those who say that nationalisation will promote harmony? It is the theory that, while they would ask the worker to strike against the employer who is making profit, he will not strike against the State, which has only the common interest of all to look after. But there was the Yorkshire strike. The Yorkshire strike was a direct strike against the Government.

Mr. LUNN: No.

The PRIME MINISTER: I know all about that. The Yorkshire strike was a strike because the Government said they would pay only a certain percentage. We were told that if we had left it to be settled between the miners and their employers, it would have been all right.

An HON. MEMBER: It would.

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, there you are! I do not require any further explanation.

Mr. SWAN: Is there such a thing as joint control in the proposition?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am coming to that.

Mr. GRUNDY: The Coal Controller came into the Yorkshire strike after a settlement was made.

The PRIME MINISTER: It was a strike against the Government, and I thank my hon. Friends for saying so. I am not going into the merits of the question at the present moment. The Government intervened to protect the taxpayer and the consumer. The Yorkshire miners struck against the State. Where
is the promotion of harmony if you have State control and State ownership so long as that is the case? Take another case. There is no doubt at all that the railways at the present moment are run at the expense of the State. The increases in wages and the cost of the diminution in hours come straight from the tax payers pockets. The control is the State. I have not seen the harmony! My right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) has given us just as much trouble as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Brace) sitting on the same bench. I cannot distinguish between them—demands for higher wages, demands about hours, and so on. We have had, I think, a few strikes. I do not see the harmony that is to come under State control.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Those things will happen under private ownership.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not say it will be worse under State ownership, but I say it will not be any better. There is an hon. Member sitting on that bench, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Lunn). The hon. Member is under no delusion about this. He made a speech to the Scottish miners.

Mr. LUNN: No; I am a Yorkshireman.

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, then the hon. Member is all right. But there was one of the hon. Members for Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bothwell"]—I think for Lanarkshire. He was speaking at a meeting of the National Union of Scottish Miners. This is what he said, and I ask special attention to it. It is a speech delivered before the question is settled—
If the mines become the property of the nation, the miners would need to be more determined than ever in their policy, and more vigorous in their trade union organisation, be cause, instead of fighting local employers, they would be fighting the Government. Previously the Government had been more or less secretly behind the employers, but nationalisation would bring them out into the open, and the miners would have to organise both politically and industrially to maintain the position in whatever fight they were engaged with the Government.
Harmony!

Mr. BRACE: Will my right hon. Friend be quite fair to the Miners Federation. This is only the opinion of the individual Member.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that he is the political organiser of the Scottish Miners Federation. He was speaking at a miners meeting, as far as I can see with out protest, and this is the interpretation
of someone who is, I believe, a miners' representative. He said, "So far from there being fewer fights, we will have more fights than ever. We shall want more organisation in order to conduct them, because we are fighting a Government."

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—to take notice of some other speeches that have been made on quite different lines, which did indeed point out that harmony would tome through nationalisation.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the sort of speech 1think I should expect to be made at any rate before the nationalisation question was settled, but I thank the hon. Member for his candour. It is quite in keeping with all our experience. In Yorkshire, within the last few weeks, in a fight against the Government by the miners, the whole of the industries of York shire were brought to a standstill. Millions of tons of coal were not put into the market when the world is thirsting for coal—Italy and France, as well as this country.

NATIONALISATION OF MINES NOT PROPOSED.

With speeches of this kind made and the trouble we are getting with regard to rail ways, I am afraid that whatever we propose with regard to nationalisation of the mines would not promote harmony, and I think, therefore, that the whole reason which induced Mr. Justice Sankey to make that recommendation is one which has been falsified by the events of the last few weeks. Now, the hon. Member there asked, "What about control?" We have accepted the principle of unification and reorganisation. We think, and I think that the mine-owners realise, that there is a very great deal of waste which is due to the fact that you have got a large number of different enterprises running in the same area under different management. There are waste of power, waste of management, and waste in distribution.

A case, undoubtedly, has also been made out for giving the miners a greater interest and voice in the working conditions which affect the industry. And then we make this recommendation:
That in view of the fact that the lives and livelihood of the miners depend upon the way in which the mines are worked, means should be devised for securing their co-operation in the shaping of the general conditions of the industry without interfering with the executive control of the individual mines.
Now I come to the recommendations with regard to unification:
That the industry should be so organised as to reduce to a minimum the expenses of management and working charges, and that with this end in view the country should be divided into convenient areas in each of which an amalgamation of neighbouring mines should be undertaken within a limited period, say two years. That the workers in and about the mines should have directors representing them on the body controlling the policy of the area groups to which they belong.
Here is a condition put in for the protection of the consumer, to prevent inflation of capital over-capitalisation—
The schemes of amalgamation should be subject to the approval of the Government and must conform to any conditions laid down by the Government for the protection of the general body of coal consumers.

SCHEME FOR PARLIAMENT.

The Government propose to prepare a scheme on the above lines, and will submit it to Parliament with the least possible delay. Those are general recommendations which we are prepared to submit to Parliament—that the minerals are to be purchased by the State; that a fund should be raised for the purpose of promoting schemes for the social improvement and the amelioration of the conditions and the amenities of life in the mining villages; that the State should not purchase the business of the mines and certainly not run them; that unification should be promoted by amalgamation in denned areas; that schemes should be promoted for the amalgamation of industries in mining areas, to reduce the cost of management, for the prevention of waste, and the in crease of efficiency; that the Government should have power to overlook these schemes in the interest of the consumer.

The workers will have two methods of making their influence directly felt. First of all, there is the scheme for giving them representation on committees which will have a voice in settling the conditions under which the work is done—not the management; you could not run a pit by a committee—but the conditions under which the work is done; and in the second place, they would have direct representation by the nomination of a certain number of directors in the area group that will be directing the control of the mines in those various areas. Those are the pro-
posals which we make in reference to the mines, and which we will submit to the House.

PROPOSALS WITH REGARD TO LABOUR.

May I, as far as Labour is concerned, summarise very shortly the proposals of the Government? We see that the country is in peril by reason of under-production. We propose to meet that by removing the causes of under-production—want of transport, shortage of labour, labour unrest. We propose to deal with the last in the first instance by appealing to everybody who has got the ear of Labour and of employers to bring home the facts; then, in so far as the Government are concerned, by dealing with questions of excessive hours, minimum wage, and unemployment, by the promotion of arrangements between employers and labour for giving the worker a voice in the control of the conditions of his industry, and for giving him a share in the prosperity of the industry; by pressing forward the legislative powers with which we have been equipped by this House for the improvement of the social conditions of the people—notably in housing; and when you come to coal by the nationalisation of minerals, by raising a substantial fund to increase the social conditions and amenities of life of the mine workers, by proposals for the unification and reorganisation of the industry to prevent waste, and by proposals for giving the miners a voice in the new organisation of the industry. That is a summary of the proposals which we put forward in regard to Labour.

TRADE POLICY.

6.0 P.M.

I wish that I were at the end of my task I must, I am sorry to say, add something about trade policy. Here again I have to recall the conditions under which we are operating. I must ask every Member of the House, and all who are outside, to try to forget pre-1914 conditions—to think of the conditions as they are to-day, and to think of what remedy you are going to apply to those conditions. The conditions may be merely temporary, but for the moment they are dominant. They dominate the immediate future, and may be dominant for some time to come. I have already summarised these conditions. Our international trade is in peril, and our home trade is depressed by reduction of output and increased cost of production. Imports of manufactured goods from
abroad have not counted. There is no immediate prospect of their coming. Germany is crippled. She has been deprived of her iron and coal, and whatever troubles may be in this country, they are not comparable to those under which Germany is labouring. When you come to the United States of America, which would be a formidable competitor, the mere fact that the exchange is against us is in itself a protection against the import of manufactured goods. If the exchange is down to 17s., that is equivalent to something like a 15 per cent tariff against the imports of any goods from the United States of America. More than that—the freights at the present moment are very high. I cannot see any prospect of their coming down to anything approximating to prewar rates. Thus, although you have a great disparity between the cost of production of an article in the United States of America and the cost at which it could be produced here, when you work out the exchange, and add to that the cost of bringing the goods over, you will find you have no profit for the United States manufacturer.

Mr. HOUSTON: That has not prevented American-made rails being delivered in Glasgow and in London for tramway purposes.

The PRIME MINISTER: You cannot possibly exclude things altogether, but the mere fact that rails have been delivered in Glasgow and in London under present conditions, when we have the power of prohibiting them altogether, shows that they were actually needed by the trade. There is complete prohibition except with the consent of the Board of Trade. I can give other cases. For instance, there is pig-iron. We are at present so short of pig-iron that there is not enough to employ our steel furnaces. What is the result? We are begging for pig-iron from Lorraine. If there were any real competition, you have got at the present moment, in the exchange and in the freights, the highest protective tariffs that have ever been proposed in this country; in fact, very much higher tariffs than any ever proposed.

Mr. HOUSTON: It does not prevent America from sending the goods.

The PRIME MINISTER: Because we are asking America to send them, and we
are prepared to pay any price. These are the salient facts of the present situation. They may change; they may change soon. I can see no prospect of their changing. When there is a change in the conditions I hope this Parliament will be bold enough to provide a remedy that will be applicable to the conditions of the time.

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ABANDONED.

We have, therefore, decided that the interim trade policy of import restrictions should come definitely to an end on 1st September. They were retained to shield industry during the time of demobilisation, and during the time when we were changing from war conditions to peace conditions. There is no further justification for them. The only result of keeping them after 1st September would be to put up prices artificially, and they are too high already.

I now come to the provisions which we have to make to defend the industry of this country against unfair competition, or against competition which might destroy certain essential industries that could not be maintained in face of open competition. There will be the obstacles in the way of imports which come from low exchanges and high freights. Those, I am afraid, will remain for some time. We have decided that we cannot put on artificial restrictions. It is not good business. It is better that we come down to the realities and let the nation face them. It may have the effect for some time of putting up the price of food, and of putting up the price of raw materials, especially those that come from America. That is the result of under production, and it is right that that should be brought home to everybody in the land. Otherwise, we shall never cure it. Therefore, the Government propose to abandon the support of exchanges, except in so far as some support may for a time be necessary to prevent complete collapse of any important exchanges. This may lead to a further fall in the American exchange until our output increases, but that will in itself raise a barrier, a higher wall, against American imports.

DUMPING.

The Government have three other proposals to deal with the shielding of our industry under exceptional conditions. In the first place, there is a condition called dumping. What is dumping? I am giving now, not a legal definition, but only my view of what would be a dumping
operation. Dumping is the exporting to this country of goods from a foreign land under the cost—beneath the price at which they are sold in their own country. There could be only one object in doing that, and that is to make war upon a particular industry in our country. That is unfair. This country, provided we face our difficulties like men—we have always done it in the past, and I have no reason to think we are at the end of British courage—has nothing to fear from fair competition from any country. But I do not think that our industries ought to be subjected to what is unfair competition and what is organised warfare upon them in an unfair way. That is what dumping, according to the definition which I have laid down, really means. It is true that certain industries may for the time being get great advantage out of it, but they are getting that advantage at the expense of neighbours, who are carrying on an honest trade which is essential to the life and business of the country, and I do not think that is fair. In the interests of fairness, as well as in the interests of British industry as a whole, the Government have decided to submit to Parliament proposals which will effectively deal with dumping in the sense in which I have defined it.

FLUCTUATIONS OF EXCHANGE.

There is another problem with which we have to deal. It is an emergency problem. I believe it is a temporary one. It has arisen entirely out of the War. It is something that was not contemplated before the War. In none of the controversies about trade, so far as I can recall them, was there any reference to it. It is the possibility that may arise from the vagaries and fluctuation of exchange. The American market is against us. The German market is simply extravagantly in our favour. The sovereign to-day fetches 82 marks, where before the War it fetched 20. If goods were sold to Germany at a price which only approximately corresponded to the nominal value of the mark, it is obvious we could not possibly stand up against what would be a gigantic bonus upon the export from this country of all kinds of commodities. That would be unfair to our industry. You might say, we should be making money. Somebody would. Meanwhile the industries that were hurt by this erruption of goods at an abnormally low rate would be thrown out of employment. It is all very well to say that
they should stand by until the tide has passed. They could not do it. It might pass on to something else. It is clear that no operation could possibly bridge that chasm. There must therefore be better means of preventing the possibilities of such an emergency arising. We shall propose that the Board of Trade be equipped with emergency powers to check a sudden and undue importation of goods at prices altogether below the cost of production here owing to the collapse of exchanges. That is an emergency measure dealing with conditions which have arisen since the War, and which may, I hope, soon pass away.

SHIELDING UNSTABLE KEY INDUSTRIES.

I come now to the third proposal, and that is the shielding of unstable key industries. What does an "unstable key industry" mean? I will give four tests, not one of which, I think, hon. Members will challenge. The first is this, whether the industry was revealed to be essential for war or the maintenance of the country during the War. That is the first test. The second is this, whether during the War it was discovered that the industry had been so neglected that there was an inadequate supply of goods produced in the industry for the purpose of equipping ourselves for the essential task of war. [An HON. MEMBER: "I thought there were to be no more wars?"] I hope not; I hoped so on the 1st August, 1914, and I hope so to-day. But it would be folly to assume that human nature will never give way to passion again, and that there will be no war. A nation that worked on that assumption might regret its confidence. The third test is, whether it was found necessary for the Government to take special steps to promote and foster that industry during the War. The fourth is this, whether if that special Government support were withdrawn, these industries could maintain themselves at the level of production which war has shown to be essential to the national life.

Mr. KILEY: Are these key industries limited to those which are essential for war purposes?

The PRIME MINISTER: The War is the test. Those are the four tests which we will apply to the key industries. The two best illustrations, although they are not comprehensive, are synthetic dyes and optical glasses and lenses. They may represent a small percentage of the whole
industry of the country, but their importance is quite out of proportion to their quantity. It is proposed that the Board of Trade shall have power to prohibit the import of these goods except under licence, and in order to prevent excessive imports a fee will be charged for the licence. It may even be necessary for some time to continue the assistance given to these industries, but care will be taken that no undue profits shall be made at the expense of the community.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Another part of our trade policy is that connected with technical instruction in the promotion of industrial research and invention. That is a vital part of any successful trade policy. During the War we have discovered how much we suffered from the fact that Germany had spent considerable sums of money upon technical instruction and research and invention, and I hope that that lesson will not be lost upon this country. Another proposal will be in connection with power production. To this we attach very considerable importance. There is a Bill before Parliament which deals with the question of electrical power. I hoped that Parliament would have carried that through before the Recess. It would have made a considerable difference in the working of our trade policy, because the sooner we organise the electric power of this country on a more satisfactory basis, the better it will be for the industries of this country. However, it was found impossible to carry this with other Bills.

WATER POWER DEVELOPMENT.

We propose to submit in the Autumn Session a Bill with regard to the control and development of water power in this country. There is a vast reserve of power that ought to be harnessed for inodustrial purposes in this country which is running to waste, and if coal is going up we need that power more than ever. It is the only way in which Italy is able to protect itself from the fact that it has no mineral deposits. At all events, it will be necessary to supplement our coal power by utilising all the water power of this country which can be utilised for the purpose. There is now being conducted in reference to power an inquiry which may have immeasurable effects on the industrial future of this country. I am very hopeful of remarkable results coming from research which is now being prosecu-
ted under the auspices of the Government All these questions of power development have a direct bearing on the question of the regeneration of rural life in England.

IMPERIAL TRADE.

I must now say a word about the fostering of our Imperial trade. That is important, not merely from the point of view of increasing our trade, but from the even more important view of strengthening the unity of the Empire. Civilisation, was saved by the British Empire in the last War. I have had several consultations with the Premiers and Ministers of self-governing Dominions, and they all attach the greatest importance to the fostering of Imperial trade by means of improving the communication between the Dominions and the Mother Country, and between India and the Mother Country. When I was President of the Board of Trade, I ventured to put forward certain proposals upon those lines. Now I am glad to say that every Dominion is pressing for the improvement of transport relations with the Mother Country—improvement chiefly in the quickening of transport. An Imperial Investigation Board has been constantly representing British and Dominion Governments, and representing also commercial interests, with a view to carrying out schemes that will improve and increase the trade between the Dominions and India and the Mother Country, by improving the means of communication between the various parts of the Empire.

CREDITS TO CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES.

We have also proposals with regard to the restoration of trade with the disorganised part of Europe. Europe was a good customer of Britain. We used to sell£180,000,000 worth of our goods to Europe; but the greater part of Europe is disorganised, and for some time, unless special steps be taken, we shall be unable to resume our trade relations with some of our important customers on the Continent of Europe. I am not referring to France or to Italy, or even to Russia; I am referring to countries like Serbia, Roumania, Poland, and parts of Austria. There are no credits established at the present moment. Although we have gigantic demands coming from these countries we cannot sell. There is no confidence. They are rich countries intrinsically, and the Government have adopted a scheme of furnishing credits to the extent of £26,000,000 as a guarantee
against risks or absolute loss. We hope, as a result of the institution of these credits, that a beginning will be made to restore trade, because those countries have a good deal to sell, and all you want to do is to have a beginning of business. Once it begins, the natural course of exchange will enable you to go on. I venture to predict that on the credits we establish we shall not lose a perceptible amount, while the benefit to the trade of the country will be enormous. I hope the banking houses will be encouraged to play a large part in what should be done.

AGRICULTURE: CONTINUATION OF FIXED PRICES.

I am afraid it would be impossible for me now to refer, as I intended to have done, to the question of Agriculture. It is such a vital industry—it is, after all, the greatest industry in this country—that it is quite impossible to make a survey of the trade and industry of the country, and leave agriculture out of the reckoning. But I have promised my hon. Friends that at an early date I shall address a meeting directly connected with the agricultural industry. They thought that that was preferable to any statement which could be made in the House. All I can say at the present moment is this. As the time is so short before the farmers of the country have to make up their minds whether they are to go on with the schemes of cultivation, a Commission is sitting to examine and report as to what would be the mini mum prices which would be fixed for the purchase of the crops next year. The Government do not anticipate the Report, but I cannot imagine any report which would not recommend the continuation, at any rate for another year, of prices that would approximate to the prices which have been obtained up to the present.

All I have heard about the harvests of the world, and all I have heard about the increased demands which are likely to be made on those harvests, leads me to the conclusion that the farmers of this country would, from a purely business point of view, be perfectly justified in anticipating a recommendation that would guarantee to them sufficient prices for continuing the contribution they have made to the food production of this country by increasing the area under cultivation. I sincerely trust—and in fact I earnestly appeal to them—to continue the patriotic experiments which they have made, and which
have done so much to restore agriculture and put it in the enviable position of being the only industry that has increased its output in this country, while so many have fallen behind. Nay, more than that. I hope to submit to the agriculturists of this country, on behalf of the Government, schemes which will restore agriculture to the position it was in forty or fifty years ago, when there were four or five million more acres under cultivation than now, and which will put us in the position which Germany was in when she produced food on a hundred acres to feed seventy-five persons, whereas in the United Kingdom the produce was sufficient to feed only forty persons. That is a condition of things which ought not to exist. I earnestly hope when we submit our proposals to the country and the House of Commons, that they will receive favourable acceptance.

FINANCE.

I now come to the last problem for investigation, and that is the important question of Finance. When you come to the question of finance a good deal of wild talk is mixed with much sound sense. But that is true of every topic, and finance is no exception. Here again we must face the facts. It is the only sound foundation for any reform. What are the facts? There are, first of all, what I may call the temporary financial conditions. What are they? This year, although we have demobilised millions of men, you could not reduce your Army and your Navy to their normal size until Peace had been signed with all the belligerents. We could not have signed the Peace with Germany one hour sooner than we did, but it has not yet been ratified. I hope that Peace will be ratified about the beginning of September. Until Peace be signed, it would have been a piece of idle recklessness on the part of the great victorious countries to withdraw the troops to such an extent as not to give them an overpowering force in the event of Peace being rejected. The Peace with Austria has not been signed. The Peace with Bulgaria has not been signed, and. what is more important from our point of view, the Peace with Turkey has not been signed. The Peace with Turkey has not been signed, not because of any delay on our part, but because we are waiting for the decision of America. We want to know whether America is pre pared to take her share of guaranteeing protection for peoples who, if they are not protected, will be subjected to torture,
mis-government, and massacre. We have not yet had our answer, and until the answer comes, you cannot formulate your peace with Turkey. As soon as it comes, we shall have to adjust the settlement to the answer which America gives. Meanwhile who is to occupy these countries? When it is expected that you should cut down Army and Navy expenditure to normal, I want those who urge us to do that to bear in mind that there are vital British interests involved. There is no settlement in which Britain is more intimately concerned than in that of Turkey. The future of the Empire depends upon the settlement of Turkey.

WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS.

I should like to say another thing. We have been urged to withdraw troops, and it is said that the withdrawal of troops and demobilisation are the only methods to secure immediate reduction. But the other day I was amazed to get a letter from the International Trade Congress. I am not sure that that is the name, but it met at Lucerne.

An HON. MEMBER: Trade Union Congress.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is it. It is the International Labour Conference, sitting at Lucerne, and it represented the Socialists of all ranks. What was the request? Was it that we should demobilise? Was it that we should reduce our armaments? Was it that we should clear out from countries which were not our own, and leave those people to self-determination? Not at all. It was a resolution angrily complaining that British troops were withdrawing from the Caucasus! I have had support for this appeal from the greatest economist in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name?"] We have a division and a half there, and it is costing us millions. Speaking roughly, I should not be a bit surprised if (with shipping and everything else) it cost us about £30,000,000 a year. America appeals to us not to withdraw; the International Socialists appeal to us not to withdraw; and, if that is not sufficient, I am proud of this fact, that the inhabitants beg the British soldiers not to withdraw. There was no prouder appeal ever addressed to any land than the appeal which asks the British soldier to remain there to shield them. It is almost worth the
money. But at the same time how can we demobilise? The same appeal comes from Syria—"Do not go away."
But we cannot, until these questions are settled, reduce the expenditure to normal. Let me give the House other reasons. We have got to wind up; we have got to keep a certain Army in France; we have 400,000 prisoners, whom we cannot restore till Peace be ratified. We cannot restore them till we know that other terms are going to be conformed with. There are conditions of that kind. You cannot, the moment the War is over, suddenly say to everybody, "Go home; leave the guns; leave hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of material down there; do not even clear it, do not protect it, do not sell it, leave it alone." There are hundreds of millions of pounds involved, and it is no use asking unreasonable things, and saying, "You are spending tons of money," without asking why you are spending it, and whether you would be better off if you did not spend it. As a matter of fact, you would lose if you did not carry these things through. It is no use fighting a great war for four or five years, unless you see the job right through.

REDUCTION IN ARMAMENTS.

But it is the permanent conditions that mostly concern the House and the interests of this country. What is the permanent charge going to be? There are certain things you cannot reduce. You must pay interest on debt and sinking fund on debt, and you must pay pensions. You cannot cut down education—that would not be a very good reduction. There is only one direction in which you can effect considerable reductions, and that is in your armaments. What does that mean? The conditions undoubtedly favour it. There is not likely to be great eagerness for war in this generation. I think we might take the lesson of the Napoleonic Wars. As soon as the Napoleonic Wars were over, the greatest soldier we produced in those wars—the Duke of Welling ton—advised the Government. He said, "You need fear no foe—at any rate for a generation. Europe has had enough fighting." He might have said, "Russia is stronger, Austria is stronger, Prussia is stronger, and, therefore, you must pre pare for some other war." He did not. He had a great Army, which had done glorious things, but he had the courage and the greatness to say, "There is no
peril that I can see except the financial peril, the social peril, the industrial peril; reduce; cut down." Lord Castlereagh and all those who had charge of that great war fortunately took his advice, and there was no big war in Europe in which we were engaged until forty years later, although we were then engaged in one we should not have been. As Lord Salisbury said, we "put our money on the wrong horse."

That is the spirit in which we have to consider the situation. The great menace in Europe has gone. Who else is to keep great armies? It is in that spirit we are prosecuting our examination into the Army Estimates, and I think we can effect considerable reductions. But the House must always remember that reductions in armaments will not mean reduction in the cost of armaments. The pay is trebled, the cost of material is doubled; and although you may effect considerable reductions in your armaments, the cost will be up what ever you do, as compared with the pre war period. Those are the fundamental facts that you have to bear in mind. I have another thing which I want to say to the House, and if my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Commander Bellairs) will wait for a few moments, he is one of those to whom I want to say it. Every body cries economy. Economy in the abstract evokes general appreciation; economies in the concrete provoke universal dissatisfaction. "Why don't you economise," it is said. If you economise on the Army the friends of the Army say. "Why don't you take the Navy?"

Commander BELLAIRS: I agree

The PRIME MINISTER: If you start with the Navy, they say the Army should be reduced, and even when they agree with economy in the Navy they say, "Why do you take those ships?" You never can satisfy everybody. Everybody is pleased with economy in the singular, but every body is in revolt against economies in the plural. We shall put our proposals before the House—I hope soon after we meet. Their is one thing that matters in economy, and it is this, that the great nations that promoted the League of Nations should show their confidence in it and trust it. If those who promoted it increase their armaments, it is a sham; it will remain a sham; it will be a scrap of paper. Those who believe in it most
must trust it most, and the rest will follow. That is the fundamental and first condition of real economy in armaments in the world. Britain is ready. Let all other nations do likewise.

STATE SERVICES OF BUSINESS MEN.

But may I say one essential word. You do not get economy by abusing Government Departments and Government officials, and by abusing those volunteers who have given their time to Government work. I am bound to say this. They have all done well. There has been a great attack upon them, as if they had been extravagant, especially the business men, without whose assistance the War could not have been won. I will give one or two illustrations, because I think this is vital. My earliest experience was in the Ministry of Munitions. What was the first step they took? To reduce the cost of manufacture—shells, machine guns, guns, rifles. The 18-pounder when the Ministry was started cost 22s. 6d. a shell. A system of costing and investigation was introduced. National Factories were set up which checked the prices, and a shell for which the War Office at the time the Ministry was formed paid 22s. 6d., was reduced to 12s., and when you had 85,000,000 shells that saved £35,000,000. There was a, reduction in the prices of all other shells, and there was a reduction in the Lewis guns. When we took them in hand they cost £165, and we reduced them to £35 each. There was a saving of £14,000,000 there, and through the costing system and the checking of the National Factories we set up, there was before the end of the War, a saving of £440,000,000

An HON. MEMBER: Nationalisation.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a point my hon. Friend is quite entitled to make, and I will give him another point. When the national projectile factories were afterwards set up, we effected a further reduction of 10 per cent. Take the Ministry of Shipping. By its organisation, by its reduction of rates, the Controller of Shipping saved hundreds of millions to this country. When you have to spend between £8,000,000,000 and £10,000,000,000 of this country's money—when you improvise great organisations, find your men where you can, find thou sands and more of absolutely new men to work out these schemes—of course there will be extravagance, of course there may be errors of judgment. Is there any busi-
ness in this country which is run without mistakes and errors of judgment? Of course there is not. But what is ever said except about these little mistakes? I have seen the Reports of Parliamentary Committees. They are about comparatively small sums—I mean comparative to the gigantic expenditure. Those are advertised; those are flaunted. Leading articles are written about them. Never a word about these hundreds of millions that have been saved by these men! Is it fair? Is it generous? Is it wise? Is it wise to seek to advertise these faults, by deliberately ignoring the achievements—deliberately suppressing them? Is it wise to do so at the moment when all government is being challenged, when an effort is being made to discredit systems and institutions in every country? If you get the democracy to believe that you get nothing but mistakes, nothing but errors, nothing but what they call scandals, and that there is no efficiency anywhere, how long do you think any system or institution can possibly continue in this country? It is not fair. It is not wise. It is not right. There is no generosity in spearing supermen, who saved hundreds of millions to this country at moments of emergency, and gave their time and energy to the service of the State when they were most needed. I feel bound to say that.

UNDER-PRODUCTION—OVER-CONSUMPTION.

I thank the House for the indulgence with which Members have listened to me. The condition of the nation is grave at the moment. It can be redeemed by effort. We are suffering enormously from under-production and over-consumption. We are not living as a nation within our means. We must ruthlessly cut down all needless expenditure, public and private, and must increase production by every legitimate endeavour. With production, we get prosperity; without it, we starve. To ensure production, the good will of all engaged in the task of production is essential. With that good will every reasonable cause of complaint must be removed. Confidence must be restored—the confidence of the workman in his employer—yea, the confidence of the employer in the workman—the confidence of both. Then their business will be conducted under conditions of fairness. That is our problem, and there is the solution. With effort, with endeavour, the prospects are good. The nations are
thirsting for goods. They have gone without them for four or five years of the War, and they are anxious that we should put them on their markets. All we want is that we should settle down to our daily tasks. Let Europe settle down. Europe is suffering in exactly the same way, only in a worse degree. It is tossed about and troubled, and unable to resume its task. It is in the condition, known to those who live on the seaside, especially on the Western shores, where the sea, after a pro longed period of tempestuous weather, cannot settle down. Then you have continuous waves rolling in from each and every direction, thrashing each other—helpless, restless confusion. Navigation is difficult and dangerous under those conditions. Some seek to help, Some lie prostrate and weary. Some try to upset the boat, either because they dislike the steersman, or want to steer themselves, or because they prefer some crazy craft of their own. With a clear eye, a steady hand, and a willing heart, we will row through into calmer and bluer waters. But we must know where we are rowing. The Government have done their best to give a direction. Let all who will man the boat, and save the nation.

Mr. ADAMSON: In the address to which the House has just listened the Prime Minister referred to many questions of vital interest to the people of this country, and I have no doubt that his words will be eagerly read with a view of seeing whether he has found a way out of the serious position in which all sections of our people believe that the country stands at the present moment. In the beginning of that very long speech to which we have just listened the Prime Minister stated that a time had arrived when we ought to speak plainly. With that sentiment I am in complete agreement. I think that the time has arrived when, if we are to be saved as a nation, we require to have some very plain speaking indeed, and, notwithstanding the many questions that have been touched upon by the Prime Minister in the course of his admirable address, there are certain points on which, I think, he has not spoken as plainly as many of us would have liked. During the course of his address, he complained that there were some people who were thinking that we should instantly return to normal times when the War was over. I do not think that there are many people in the country who were foolish enough to imagine that, after the conflict such as we have been engaged in for about
four and a half years, it was possible for us immediately to return to normal conditions. But I would remind the Prime Minister that almost nine months have passed since the Armistice was signed, since the fighting was practically finished, and as yet the people of this country see no sign of our returning to normal conditions. Nine months is a long time, and we should have had some sign of returning to normal conditions in the course of that period. The Prime Minister, dealing with that same particular idea, pointed out that he remembered, as Minister of Munitions, how long it took us to change from peace conditions to war conditions, and he believed that it would take us as long to change from war conditions to peace conditions. As one who has every intention of speaking plainly, I want to say to the Prime Minister that, if he is correct, it will be a bad job for this nation if it takes us as long to change from war conditions to peace conditions as it took us to change from peace conditions to war conditions. If we have to go on spending at anything like the rate we have been spending for five years, then I do not think the financial resources of this nation will stand the strain for the length of time the Prime Minister seems to have in his mind that it will take us to change from war conditions to peace conditions.
7.0 P.M.
The first question with which the Prime Minister dealt in an exhaustive way was the trade position. He gave us what he called—I think very rightly—the facts of the case. He pointed out how the facts of the position before the War had been completely reversed. Before the War we were able to have the balance in our favour, that balance being secured, as the right hon. Gentleman very carefully explained, by interest, by our carrying trade, exchange, and other things. One question occurs to me, because I think I realise the vital importance of the things named by the Prime Minister in putting the national balance on the right side. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the report is true that the Government, since the War ended, have sold to a foreign country 161 ships of various kinds, because, if so, it was a very foolish thing to do? I put that as a question, because I realise the careful explanation of the Prime Minister, that when our trade before the War was summed up we had still an ad verse balance against us of £150,000,000
and that our carrying trade, interest, and the exchange changed it into a balance in our favour of, as I understood it, £200,000,000. If these things were vital to us before the War they are more vital to us now, and this question about the sale of ships to foreign countries is put because it bears on the point, and because it appears to me, if true, to be a foolish transaction, crippling us seriously in our efforts to restore our financial position.
The Prime Minister then went on to say that if we were to get out of our deplorable condition we must increase our production. I want to say quite frankly to the Prime Minister and to the House—and in saying this I carry the assent of everyone associated with me on these benches—we are at one with the right hon. Gentleman there—we believe that we must increase production if we are to get out of the condition, in which we are at present. But in discussing this vital matter of the in crease of production I want to say quite frankly that I do not think we will help the position very much if we look at it continually from the point of view of getting that increased production out of the workmen alone. In the course of his treatment of this question of increased production, the Prime Minister pointed out that in America wages were higher and hours were as short, but that labour costs were much lower than in this country. I want to ask the Prime Minister why have we that state of affairs in America? I am looking at it now from the point of view of the mining industry here and in America. Does the Prime Minister, or does he or the House, remember that the reason we have labour costs lower and higher production, so far as mining is concerned, in America—

The PRIME MINISTER: I know, of course, why the men produce more in the mines, but I was not thinking of mining at the moment I spoke, but rather of iron and steel. The figures I had bore exclusively on that.

Mr. ADAMSON: Take iron and steel, or any of the industries of America. I ask the Prime Minister, Does he think that it is because the American workmen can, man for man, produce more than can the British workmen? I do not believe it. I would have the Prime Minister and the House remember that many of these men producing in the various industries of America at present are men who have been trained here and have gone forth
from this country to America. No, Sir, the reason why you have increased production and lower labour costs in America is because you have the American employer of labour paying more attention to the machinery of production than is the case with the British employer of labour. If we are going to increase our production—and to live as a nation we must increase our production!—this is a matter not for the workmen alone. I know how vital it is for production that we should face this important issue, but it is not a matter for the workmen alone. It must be faced by the employer of labour as well as by the workman. It is the duty of the Government to see that employers of labour do face this issue. If it is to be faced successfully, then you will have to scrap your machinery to a large extent in many industries here. You will have to employ more machinery in certain industries where, at the present time, very little machinery is used. You will have to scrap your antiquated methods of transport in many sections of the industrial system.
You will also—and this is just as important as the other things I have mentioned—have to stop the cheese-paring policy that has been adopted by a section of British employers. This is a thing you do not find prevailing to the same extent in America. Once your rates of wages have been fixed in the United States, if the workman increases his production the workman gets the benefit of that increased production. That has not been the case in the industrial system of this country. You here find a man or men who have been working at a certain rate, and because they were able, by putting extra skill, energy, and knowledge into their work to raise their wages by 1s. or 2s. per week over what was looked upon as the standard wage, the employer came down and cut into the rate, lowering it, and killing the initiative of his men. There are many industries in this country where the employer is entirely to blame for killing his men's initiative by this cheese-paring policy. If the present position of matters is to be remedied that sort of thing re quires stopping, and the employer and the Government must see to it that, if the workman is prepared to give of his best both of brain and brawn, he enjoys the fruits of his industry to a far larger extent than ever before.
Still dealing with this subject the Prime Minister said that we must either increase our production or lower our standard of
life. There is one other thing I observed, and that is where I complain of the Prime Minister not speaking out as plainly as I would like, because I think the time has come for plain speaking. Does not the Prime Minister think that the same thing that applies to the workman's standard of wages should apply to profits? I am dealing with profits that have obtained till now, and still obtain. Surely if we are to increase our production these things that I have briefly discussed are vital to securing increased production. If we are to attain to a greater degree of financial prosperity than we enjoy at the present moment, and if the country is to be saved from disaster, you do not require only to increase your production. There are several other ways in which you can assist in regaining your financial stability. You can spend money wisely. When once you earn it, in spending it wisely you will assist yourself financially very much. The Armistice has been signed nine months. The Government is still spending at the rate of £4,420,000 per day, fully £2,000,000 more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able, under existing conditions, to raise, thus adding to the burdens we have to bear. Since the Armistice we have spent no less than £70,000,000 on Russia. We cannot go on spending at that rate, and the Government had better realise it. I do not believe that people will stand any Government spending at that rate very much longer. We have not had much in formation as to the Prime Minister's intention to put down Estimates. My advice is to begin from now, and in the most drastic fashion end the extravagance that goes on in Government Departments, and cut down your Estimates at the earliest possible moment.
Take, for example, the item connected with the Air Force, on which we are spending no less than £66,000,000. The American Government proposed to spend almost an equal sum, but the American Parliament refused to endorse it, and only gave power to spend not more than £10,000,000. That is an illustration of how we continue foolishly to spend money, much of which could be saved. The Secretary for War has made several interesting speeches this Session on the reorganisation of the Army. He told us of the numbers of the men and the manner in which they are to be reorganised, but he made no allowance of the effect that the establishment of the League of Nations would have on our international relations
in the future. What are we continuing to spend these vast sums upon the Army and Navy for? Where is the enemy that is a danger to the people of this country at the moment against whom we require to pre pare? Germany, the country against which we had to prepare prior to 1914, is no longer a menace, and Russia is not a menace. Are our Allies France or America a menace to us? I do not think so. I see no signs of it, and there is no need for the vast sums of money which are still being spent on the Army and the Navy to continue. You are heaping up by the expenditure an amount of dissatisfaction on the part of the parents of the lads who are still being retained against their will in the Army and the Navy. One of the things the Prime Minister requires to do is to drastically cut down the Army and Navy Estimates as well as the Civil Service.

The PRIME MINISTER: Not the Civil Service?

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes; I could give examples in the Civil Service in which you can well afford to cut down drastically the Estimates that we have passed. There is another way in which we can assist the financial position in which we find ourselves. In addition to wisely spending the money the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to raise, we can in various ways make more money as a nation than we are doing at the present time. The Prime Minister told us that one of the things he intended to do was to use more effectively the water-power of this country that was running to waste, and I hope that will be done, for I have suggested it before. The water-power of this country should be effectively used for the benefit of the nation, and not for private enterprise, and the returns ought to come to the public purse and not to the private individual.
Another method is for the Government to effectively exploit whatever oil supplies there are in this country, and this should be done by the nation securing the profit instead of the private individual. There is also the question of the Post Office, which is now national property. Its operations are very limited, and you stop at the very point where the Post Office could become a very profitable institution, and you permit business that really ought to be transacted through the postal department to be undertaken by private en-
terprise, and consequently the profit made in that way finds its way into the pockets of the private individual instead of the State. These are just examples of the way in which the Government would add to the money that is now being raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope they will give the question of a national development of these very important national services more attention.
I wish to say a word or two with reference to raising funds to enable us to get into a healthier financial condition. In the course of his speech the Prime Minister several times mentioned the manufacture of munitions. Only last week a Profiteering Bill passed through all its stages, but that Bill was only a skeleton of the measure that some of us thought was necessary in order to effectively deal with the question of profiteering, and it does not give any power to the Government to examine the position from the point of view of profiteering during the last five years. If it had done so, I suggest to the Prime Minister that would have enabled the Government to have raised considerable sums of money which would have been very helpful in getting over our financial difficulties. The Prime Minister gave us an example, and he pointed out, when defending the voluntary workers in the various Government Departments, that they have been the means of cutting down to an enormous ex tent the price of shells and other necessaries which the Government required during the War. Why were they able to cut down those prices? Because they were able to keep a closer eye on those supplying the necessities of the nation. But, nevertheless, these people were able to continue to make enormous profits, even after the voluntary workers came in. That in itself surely points to the necessity for this Profiteering Bill being made retrospective, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to get millions of pounds that have been made by the profiteers out of the necessities of the people of this country.
An hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Aberdeen has been going closely into this matter by questions to the various Government Departments, and the result is that he is convinced that at least £1,000,000,000 could be recovered in the way I am suggesting. I hope the Government is going to have the Profiteering Bill strengthened, so that the profiteer will have rather a rough time if he attempts to
continue his unholy operations. Not only that, but I hope it will be made retrospective, and that the millions out of which we have been fleeced will be brought back into the public pocket, and this will enable us to get over some of our financial difficulties. My last point is the question of the Government policy so far as the mining industry is concerned. I want to say frankly that personally I was much disappointed to hear the Prime Minister outline the policy of the Government. In dealing with that particular part of his address this afternoon, the Prime Minister pointed out that he had never made any promise that they would nationalise the mines, or that the Government would give effect even to the Report of the Commission they had set up. I do not charge the Prime Minister with saying that the Government would give effect to the Report, but I want to remind him of the work of his colleague, the Leader of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman was reporting here what was contained in the Interim Report of the Coal Com mission he pointed out what had been re commended by Mr. Justice Sankey and three of his colleagues, first as to wages, then hours, and the other matters in the Report. He then went on to point out that the members of the Commission, and particularly the Chairman, had stated that, if this Interim Report was accepted, it was the intention that they would go on to consider the question of nationalisation, housing, baths, and other questions of that kind. After he made that explanation, he added, "And it is the intention of the Government to carry out the Report in the spirit and in the letter."

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the Interim Report.

Mr. ADAMSON: But you cannot dissociate the circumstances that surrounded the making of that statement, and to such an extent is that the case that I can assure the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House that the vast majority of the mining community believed—

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I have just been told the substance of his speech, and that he says that I gave some promise that I accepted in advance. Will he give me the precise words by which I made such a promise?

Mr. ADAMSON: I went on to describe what occurred in the House, and how, in
reporting here as to what was contained in the Interim Report of the Sankey Commission, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it gave 2S. a day in wages, a reduction of one hour, and several other matters, and that, if this was satisfactory to the miners, Mr. Justice Sankey had intimated that the Commission was quite prepared to continue its sittings and deal with housing, baths, railway clearances, and nationalisation, and all those sort of things; and he then said, "And the Government intend to give effect to the Report in the spirit and in the letter." I think those were the words he used.

Mr. BONAR LAW: "To this Report."

Mr. ADAMSON: You cannot dissociate the Interim Report from what you were describing was to follow. I do not want to claim too much there; all I want to say is that the circumstances of the words were such that the vast majority of the mining community believed that, if the majority of the Commission reported in favour of nationalisation, the Government would accept that Report. The majority has re ported in favour of nationalisation, and to-day we have had the Prime Minister telling us that they are not going to accept the Report of the majority, but are rather going to follow the lines suggested by one single member of the Commission. What has been outlined by the Prime Minister as being the policy of the Government, so far as mines are concerned, is practically the Report of Sir Arthur Duckham, which is signed by him alone and by no other member of the Commission. The Prime Minister and the Government may take this view, but, supposing that to be the policy, it does not dispose of the question of nationalisation of the mines. The idea of the nationalisation of the essentials of national life has bitten far too deeply into the people of this country for this to be the last that will be heard of it. I believe that at the next General Election, and it may be at succeeding General Elections, the question of the nationalisation of the mines and railways will be test questions which the members of the present Government will require to face, as well as Members in other parts of the House. I hope we have not yet heard the last word from the Prime Minister and the Government so far as this important matter is concerned. I can assure him that, as I have just pointed out, even if they have made up their minds that they cannot go
further, the question will be made a test question at every succeeding election until the principle has been secured and is made part and parcel of our national policy.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rise to make only a very few observations, and should not have risen at all except that I wanted to say a word about Armenia. Before I come to that, may I just express, with the greatest possible respect, my deep regret that the Government should have thought it right to follow the course of presenting this very elaborate review of their industrial policy, and the statements that have been made upon it, on the very last day of the Session. I recognise and admit, of course, what the Prime Minister said, namely, that that would give an opportunity to the country to consider the proposals before the House of Commons reassembles. But, with the greatest respect for the Prime Minister, I cannot help feeling that that really does indicate an opinion of the true functions of Parliament which I personally deplore. Parliament is here, not merely to listen to what is said outside, whether in the newspapers, in Trade Union Congresses, or anywhere else. Parliament is here to debate and discuss and give a lead to the nation. Under these circumstances it is practically impossible for Parliament to do that. I regret it because—and I hope the Prime Minister will not think me unduly critical—I do feel that the Government have on more than one occasion shown in this last week a really regrettable indifference to the dignity and the sovereignty of Parliament. I do not want to rake up old quarrels, nor again to go over our grievances in regard to the Profiteering Bill; but that was only one instance of several in which the Government have over and over again, as it seems to me, appeared to consider Parliament as the instrument for carrying out the policy of the Cabinet, and indeed of the Prime Minister. That really is not the Constitution under which we live, and it is not a Constitution that can be made to work in this country. Unless you preserve in the minds of the people of this country the prestige of Parliament, you really have no answer to direct action. It is the one safeguard you have against revolution, and there should be no consideration of Parliamentary convenience, no question of keeping the House sitting for another day or so, no question even of Ministerial convenience—which was the only excuse for the Profiteering Bill.
There was no necessity for sitting up all night if Ministers had been prepared to sit a few more days. It is really a most wicked prostitution of Parliament to force a Bill of that magnitude and importance in one Sitting.
But that is not the only thing. I do not wish to say anything that would appear to be a criticism of the Prime Minister for not attending Parliament during the War and during the very strenuous months that have elapsed since, but I do hope that in the coming Session he will see whether he cannot be present rather more often than he has been. I am quite sure, if he will allow me to say so, that he would find his own work easier if he could keep himself in close personal touch with the House of Commons, and I am perfectly certain that it is useless to expect the people of this country to regard the House of Commons as the supreme, or one of the supreme elements of authority in the Government of the country if the Prime Minister very rarely attends its proceedings.
I am sorry to have begun on a note of criticism. May I say just a word as to the concluding observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). I am not foolish enough to suppose that nationalisation has been heard of for the last time. Nobody is. But I do hope and trust that, before the leaders of wage-earning opinion in this country commit themselves irrevocably to nationalisation, they will really carefully think out what it is that they hope to get. It is impossible to argue it at any length this evening, but, as it seems to me, the real demand of the working classes—with which I personally am profoundly sympathetic—is a demand for, to use a cant phrase, self-determination. What they really want is greater liberty and freedom, and control of their own destiny. I am sure of that whenever I talk to them. I was in my own Constituency on Saturday, and many of my Constituents say that they do not regard themselves as sufficiently free. They say. "We are treated like dogs." That is the kind of phrase that those who are discontented use. "We are not treated as free men; we are not given any real control or any real voice in the management of industry, or anything of that kind." I trust very much that the Government will be bold in this matter. The Prime Minister used some phrases which, if I may say so. I welcomed very heartily, about the changes which he hoped to make in the organisa-
tion of industry. It seemed to me, however, though I may be wrong, that he was holding back from the full doctrine—namely that you must recognise that as you democratise your political institutions you have to democratise your industrial institutions. That really is the bottom truth of the matter. You cannot have a country as democratically governed as this one is in all political matters and maintain untouched the old organisation of industry, which is really based on the principle of autocracy
I only make that digression in order to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if I may, that you cannot get any freedom by nationalisation. It is a profound delusion to suppose that the direct wage-earning servants of the State are freer or have more control over their destiny, or any better share in the management of industry, than those who are serving private employers. It was an invention, I believe, of a German school of socialist economics which, I believe, is becoming discredited in France and in other countries, and which, I hope, will become discredited here. It is based on the theory that the State should have control of everything and rule and direct everything and destroy individual freedom. No one has less to gain from that than the wage-earning classes of this country. The Prime Minister said a great many things with which we are all in the heartiest agreement about the necessity for increasing production and for the diminution of industrial unrest. But I am not sure that he gave quite sufficient weight to the greatest cause of unrest, namely, that due to the present condition of prices. He spoke of wages having gone up, but I was very much struck, in talking with my Constituents on Saturday, by the universal proposition that they were better off on 21s. a week before the War than they are on £3 a week at the present time. Several of them gave me instances of this kind. They said, "We have to buy boots for our children. They cost 18s. 6d. now, as against 5s. before the War, and do not last half as long." If that is the case, a mere increase of wages will never meet it. I am sure it is right to say, as far as one can, the truth about these matters. I do not believe the stopping of profiteering is going to make a very great difference in prices. It may, in some cases, bring down the price of this or that article, but it will not be a general remedy. We must seek for remedies in increased
production, in rigid economy, and, as I believe personally, in some reform of the currency conditions at present prevailing in this country. No doubt economy and production are the two great things, and if you are going to have economy you can only effect big economy if you direct your policy to that end. With that part of the Prime Minister's speech I am in entire agreement. What I want to urge on the Government is this, that the great national expenditure is expenditure on armaments. That is by far the most expensive part. If we are to have a reduction of armaments, it must be by changing our policy in such a way as will enable us to have that reduction. I am not going into particulars of foreign policy now, but I do say this, we have established a League of Nations, and we must make that a reality. It is no use having established it—indeed, it would be far better to scrap it—unless the Government mean to work it as a reality. I say that with some meaning. I am not satisfied at the present moment—and here I am not referring to Ministers—that some of the officials with their spirit of bureaucracy have any real desire to make the League of Nations what it should be. I find an illustration in the interesting speech made by the Secretary for War the other day, in which he advocated economy, but in which there was not the slightest reference to this point. I observe the same in almost all the speeches of Ministers dealing with this question. Really, we must try to get a new point of view and a new spirit if we are going to make the League of Nations a success, and if we intend to save this country from bankruptcy and disaster.
That brings me to the Armenian question. I feel in considerable difficulty in making any observations on this. The case for assisting Armenia is really over-whelming. I do not want to recount again to the House the history of the massacres of 1915—the most terrible that have ever happened in the history of the world. Nothing ever happened before involving such terrible destruction of life and the infliction of such suffering as happened in these Armenian massacres, when 800,000 people, out of a population of something over 2,000,000, were killed, and killed with the most brutal and wicked form of torture and cruelty. They were killed, do not let us forget, because the ruffians—there is no other word for them—who con-
trolled the Turkish policy thought at that time they were likely to be of assistance of the Entente. The massacres were organised from Constantinople clearly because it was thought that the Armenians were our friends. At the time when Russia went to pieces through the Revolution, no doubt these Armenians had for some months to some extent maintained the Entente cause in that part of the world. They fought gallantly, but by so fighting they merely exacerbated the views which obtained in that part of the world. At the present time they find themselves in this position. They are surrounded by bitter enemies and treated as traitors, and they are still subject to the old Turkish influences. They are also the enemies of the Georgians, and I have not the slightest doubt that if we took our troops away the remainder of these unhappy people, probably a million and a half of them, would be slaughtered almost to a man, woman and child. It maybe a few would escape as they did before. Indeed, the people now there are largely composed of those who fled from the Turkish massacre in 1915.
It would be a great responsibility to take away the division and a half of British troops now there if it should mean that in consequence these people would be extinguished. I quite recognise the enormous difficulties of the Government. I do not want to press this matter unduly. I do not say that you must leave the troops there, because I recognise the warning which the Prime Minister has given, as to the financial danger to our position being extreme. We cannot, therefore, afford any expenditure there at this moment, unless it is absolutely and vitally essential, because if we spend money in excess, we may drive our country into economic disaster. At the same time I hope that some middle course may possibly be found. Something might be done by agreement. If there is competition between helping General Denikin and the Armenians I think the latter have a first claim. They have been our friends, and if we desert them they will certainly be destroyed. Therefore, if it be possible to help them by diverting some of the assistance that is being sent to General Denikin, it may be desirable to adopt this course. I merely throw this suggestion out. I do not want to press for any particular policy. I only wish to do what I can to put the case of these people before the
House and before the country. I hope I may be forcing an open door so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, but surely it might be possible to accept assistance from another quarter. There are other nations, one of which was mentioned by the Prime Minister, which might, help in that direction, and if one of them could be induced to come to the assistance of the Armenians, either with money or in any other way at this moment, I am sure the Government could well accept such assistance with the greatest freedom. Anything that can be done—and I do not want to say anything that would be indiscreet—to assist these unhappy people should be done. Although I recognise the difficulties of the position, I hope we shall not have to deplore in a few months time the final extinction of a race which, what ever its faults, is a race which has had heroic passages in its history, and which has held aloft the banner of Christianity in a land in which that banner has not often been raised.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BRACE: I am sure the House listened, as it always does, with interest and attention to the speech of the Noble Lord. He deeply interested me not only with his human notes, but with his democratic declarations. I do not think there can be any great gulf between the Noble Lord and the Labour party, and, therefore, we shall not be surprised to find the Noble Lord discovering the broad ground on which he can conduct his operation for carrying into action his opinions among those who belong to the part with which I am associated. But I rose really to address myself to part of the speech of the Prime Minister. I really could have wished the right hon. Gentleman had made that speech not on the last day of but earlier in the Session. It is a speech of far-reaching importance, dealing as it does with questions vital in their character to the welfare of this nation in particular and of the world in general. I do not dissent from the conclusion of the Prime Minister when he said that if we are to reconstruct this nation upon a standard of life to which our people are entitled, then we must produce much more largely than we are doing to day. No doubt the dire need of the moment is production. When I came down to the House to-day I was full of hope, tinged with a little anxiety, as to what my right hon. Friend would have to say about the famous Box. I frankly confess he disappointed me with his proposal for deal-
ing with the mining situation, as he certainly will have disappointed the mining community and all the working sections of it. I do not think he was quite fair to the Coal Commission or to the conclusions of the distinguished judge who presided over that Commission. The Prime Minister said that all that distinguished judge had to recommend his proposal for nationalisation was that it was going to bring about a better under standing between employers and workmen and to give industrial peace to the country. But my right hon. Friend forgot to quote sections of the Commission's Report which had a much more important bearing upon the Coal Commission's conclusion than the statement made by the Prime Minister, and if the House will bear with me for a moment, I would like to draw attention to Clause 18 of the Second Report, in which the learned judge, who was Chairman of the Commission, says:
There are in the United Kingdom about 3,000 pits owned by about 1,500 companies or individuals. The unification of State ownership makes it possible to apply the principles of standardisation of materials and appliances, and thereby to effect economies to an extent which is impossible under a system where there are so many individual owners.
That is entirely different from what the Prime Minister told the House as to the foundation upon which the Chairman of the Royal Commission makes his report. Here we have the fact that there are 3,000 pits owned by 1,500 different firms, and that therefore, apart from the unification of these firms under Nationalisation, it is impossible to bring about a standardisation such as will make for a larger output than is being obtained to-day. In addition to that I would call the Prime Minister's attention to Clause 3 of the same Report. The learned judge and his colleagues did not ask, and certainly did not expect that the Government was going to put a scheme of mining nationalisation into operation to-morrow because Clause 3 contains this provision:
I recommend that the scheme of local administration hereinafter set out, or any modification of it, adopted by Parliament, be immediately set up with the aid of the Coal Controller's Department, and that Parliament be invited to pass legislation acquiring the coal mines for the State after the scheme has been worked for three years from the date of this Report, paying fair and just compensation to the owners.
What the Chairman of the Coal Commission and his colleagues who agreed
with him desired was that we should endeavour by a gradual system to bring into operation in this country mines nationalisation spread over three years. We should know by then whether the scheme would apply. It was not to come into operation all at once. It was to be under the control and in charge of the Coal Control Department, and if at the end of the three years it was found upon that experience that mines nationalisation was not going to give the country the output it required, then would be the time to come to this House and say that mines nationalisation had proved in practice to be a failure. I must ask the Government to reconsider their decision upon this point. Output is absolutely necessary or we perish as a world Power. That being so, it is no use dealing with this question in any fragmentary manner. We must get down to the bottom of it. What is it the Government propose? I am not going to belittle the proposals dealing with housing and the social amelioration of the people I represent. I welcome gladly the proposal that before the Government will allow the money to be paid over for the minerals of this land a proportion of that money shall be taken to enable the mining community to reconstruct their lives upon a higher standard than exists to-day in the mining villages of the country. When I am asked, when this House is asked, when the large masses of the people whom with my colleagues I represent, are asked to accept the scheme of the Government, I would ask the Prime Minister and the Government to realise that all that they are proposing is a glorified combine of private capital. That is what it amounts to. You are going to divide the United Kingdom into certain districts, and all the collieries in those districts are to be brought into an amalgamation. That amalgamation is to be the one unit for operating the mining industry in that part of the country, and upon that Labour is to have a voice. What kind of voice? Is it an effective voice?

The PRIME MINISTER indicated assent.

Mr. BRACE: Very well. The Prime Minister says that Labour is to have an effective, voice. Do you think that the coal-owners are going to welcome Labour having an effective voice upon that? I
invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider for one moment Section 32, page 11, of this Second Report. This is what I want him to appreciate:
The attitude of the colliery owners is well expressed by Lord Gainsford, who, speaking on their behalf as a witness before the Commission, stated; 'I am authorised to say on behalf of the Mining Association that if owners are not to be left complete executive control they will decline to accept the responsibility of carrying on the industry, and, though they regard nationalisation as disastrous to the country, they feel they would in such event be driven to the only alternative—nationalisation on fair terms.'
Therefore, I would invite the Government to realise, even if they get the workers in mines to give a favourable consideration to their programme, the Mining Association representatives on the Coal Commission, through the mouth of Lord Gainsford suggest that they will have nothing to do with it, and that rather than that the workmen should have any effective executive control they would prefer nationalisation. It is upon that point that my right hon. Friend's scheme must break down, because if he is going to give to the workers an effective power in the control of the mining industry, then the coal-owners decline to co-operate, and if he does not give an effective power to the workers in the co-operative scheme, which the Government now seem to be desirous of carrying into effect, we as workers cannot be expected to co-operate. There must be nothing of a sham thing about, this. It is because I am convinced, quite soberly convinced, that nationalisation is the only scheme which contains within itself the promise to give to this country and to the world that standard of ouput we must have to live, that I stand by nationalisation, and I beg the Government to give it the most careful reconsideration.
What is the position? It is partly psychological. Through many generations—mark you, I do not place all employers of labour in this category—the workmen have been treated not higher than the machinery, although a human wealth-producing machine. That has created in the minds of the masses of the workers a real distrust and suspicion of the private employer. I am very sorry for it, because it creates added difficulties in dealing with this problem. But the Government will make a profound mistake unless they take into their calculation the fact that that psychology has to be dealt with. If you ask the miners to produce, unless it can be
shown they are going to produce not for the profit of private individuals but for the advantage of the State, I assure my right hon. Friend that he is up against a mentality which will block him at every turn. Take one instance. Are you going to continue the payment of 1s. 2d. per ton profit to the employer I think you are What does that mean?

Mr. HARTSHORN: They are paying more now.

Mr. BRACE: Whatever it is, it is on the capital. It means that for every ton of increase that comes out of the mines the private employer got an increase in profit. You will have to meet that; it is no use trying to evade it, you are right up against it. If the Government cannot see their way to nationalisation at this moment, they ought to abolish the system of remunerating capital. You do not pay the railway shareholders upon that basis. Any support which the Government gives to railway shareholders is on the basis of the average pre-war profits. Why do you not pay the colliery owners on a system of that kind? It seems to be much fairer. Whether it be more fair or not, I do assure the right hon. Gentleman that unless he can get the miners away from the idea that the more they produce in coal the more they are producing in profit for the private owner, he is asking for trouble in asking them to get an increased output from the mines. I am most anxious to in crease the output. One of my hon. Friends has been co-operating with me in Wales to secure an increase in output. Therefore, when I make these statements in the House, I am basing myself upon our experience. We are most anxious to bring into operation a system under which, we shall have this increased output. My right hon. Friend, with all the controversial skill of an old debater, made me most uncomfortable owing to the way in which he quoted some of my colleagues, and used those quotations as reasons why we should not have nationalisation. The three Members upon the Coal Commission were very important men, but they are not more important than the Miners Federation of Great Britain as a whole. Until the Prime Minister can cite a motion carried at a Miners Federation Conference against an endeavour to find a way to settle disputes by negotiation rather than by war he is not entitled to quote them as a reason why the House of Commons should not debate nationalisation.
It is a wrong impression which the country has that miners can stop without notice. The lightning strike and direct action without notice are new inventions. I am glad to think we are getting into a much better atmosphere now. Most of our people are beginning to realise that the constitutions under which we have worked in the past on the Conciliation Boards are not altogether wrong. Under those constitutions, if the workman has a grievance he must strive to settle it with his official. If he cannot settle it with the official, he must try to settle it with the committee at the particular colliery or works with the representative of the work men. It is only when they have failed there that the matter can be taken to the central Conciliation Board, and the man cannot stop work even then until the Conciliation Board has had an opportunity of inquiring and trying to attempt a settlement. The Prime Minister will, therefore, see that he has put a very minor proposition against the actual practice under which we work. I hope it will not be taken as a reason why the Government cannot adopt nationalisation as a solution of this great national difficulty. I noticed that the Prime Minister quoted a speech made by a Member of the Labour party. It was quite proper for him to do so, and I make no complaint, because the Prime Minister was quite within his rights. But I should like him to remember that this is not the only opinion. The broad fact is, taking the great national services, the Post Office, the Army, and the Navy, that there is in actual practice nothing like the disputation as between the nation and the workpeople as there is in any private enterprise. I feel sure that if the mines wore nationalised we should not only be able to get a much larger output from the mines, but that we should be working in a different atmosphere, where disputes and stoppages would be an exception—a very rare exception—compared with our experience in these days. If my right hon. Friend wants output, and he does, and so do we, then we must have the industry settled upon the basis of nationalisation and then have the whole price-list reviewed. I myself have always been in favour of piece-workers. If the House will allow me to say so, I have always thought that working by the piece more closely fits in with the genius of this race than any other system. Under any system of day wages, you must have
officials to see that a certain quantum of work is accomplished. Where people work by the piece, provided they observe the rules and regulations, they are their own master. It is because the miners work by the piece and are their own masters that you have such a virile body of people who, with their independence of character, with all their faults and shortcomings, are a wonderful asset to this nation. Therefore, I believe in working by the piece. If we are to have our people working by the piece, you must first settle their minds on the question of fundamentals. Whether nationalisation comes this year, the next or the next after, there never will be peace in the mining industry until the mines have been nationalised.
Why should you not nationalise this industry? Why should you engage your selves in the great undertaking of forming combinations of capital when you are told beforehand that the coal-owners them selves would prefer nationalisation to any such system? The Prime Minister says, "When I say workmen are to have a voice on these committees, I mean an effective voice." Unless we have an effective voice we will not go on them. If we have an effective voice the coal-owners say, "We will not have it." It seems to me the Government will be driven to adopt nationalisation. Why not adopt it gracefully now so that we may go to the mining community and say, "The Government have now agreed that the mines shall be nationalised. We will agree to review the proposals at all these collieries, and have the widest possible margin between the piece-workers and the day-workers"? It is no use having day-work rates and piece rates very nearly upon the same standard, because if you do there is no inducement for men to work by the piece or the yard or the ton. Therefore if we start with nationalisation, backed up with the review and resurvey of all these questions, the Government will be pre paring the way for an increased output. We want nationalisation, and we think we ought to have it. We think the Government will be acting wisely, as a business proposition, to give it to us. I realise myself so clearly that unless we can have an increased output we are going to ruin the trade of the country that I shall be prepared to co-operate as best I can in securing an increased output. Having said that it is pushing an open door to ask my colleagues and myself to co-operate for
an increased output. We will do what we can, but from our experience and knowledge of our own people there are difficulties in the way and obstacles which must be removed, and I beg the Government, between now and the time when they will have to bring in their legislation, to reconsider the whole matter, and if they can adopt in spirit and in letter the recommendations of the Coal Commission and give us nationalisation, we shall be able to get in a very short time a standard of output which will meet the requirements of the nation and give us that export trade which we are so hungering for in these days.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: I quite realise that the Prime Minister was unable to deal fully with the matter of agriculture, but I very much regret, having told us that we were the only industry which has increased our output, he had not time to say a few more words on the subject. With the dry weather we have been experiencing the difficulties of agriculturists, specially cowkeepers and so on, are increasing more and more, and every assistance which can be given to the industry through the trying winter which is coming will be welcome, and a few words of assistance from the Prime Minister would be of value, realising, as agriculturists would realise, that they are not being forgotten in this difficult time of that industry's trial. I really rose, however, to say a few words on behalf of a section of the community which is vitally affected by the utterance of the Prime Minister. I speak on behalf of the royalty owners, a small body, who were not represented on the Sankey Commission. We are naturally opposed to the policy of nationalisation. It is the thin end of the wedge of all nationalisation and it is a dangerous policy to embark upon. Of course the right hon. Gentle man did not outline—I suppose we could not expect it—as to how these proposals are to be put into operation, but I think I am entitled to make one or two points on behalf of the royalty owners. It is most distasteful to me to speak on a matter in which I have a direct interest, but I feel my responsibility. The suggestion has been made of a fund, which I gather was to be taken from the royalty owners, to be used towards the social amenities of mining villages. If that is done I presume that policy will be ex-
tended to ironstone royalties and royalties of all sorts, because what is the difference? It is an embarkation on a new principle and one which I imagine would apply to other industries as well. If the right hon. Gentleman will look into what the mining royalty owners have done, he will find that they have not been on the whole unmindful of their responsibilities with reference to the money they have received from the mines. I could quote, and no doubt he could get from evidence, a good deal of information as to how that money has been spent. It has been spent on the social amenities of the district from which the money has come. Therefore I would urge that we should be treated on the same lines as any other royalty owners, because, all said and done, royalty owners are only rent-owners.
The word "royalty" is not understood by the community at large. From the point of view of the person who owns the royalty, it is a very unfortunate word, be cause the reason of most of the royalties has come from the fact that you must have a large amount of capital to sink a pit and work it. There are many small owners who have not that capital, and it is far better for them to go to a neighbouring colliery and say, "We will let you our coal." We come to an agreement at so much an acre, or so much a ton, and the big company takes over the responsibility of working it, and therefore it becomes the same as a rent. These rents have been recognised as rights of property. They pay mining royalty duty, and in some cases where estates are mortgaged they are of great value, for the mortgage of the estate is based on the value of the coal underneath. I would ask the Prime Minister, when these proposals are being put forward, to consider these rights of property on broad and just lines. We are a small class, but I think he will find, especially in the case of the bigger royalty owners, that a very large amount of their money has been spent in social development, and has been used in a profitable way. Mine has been spent in the last four years in running a war hospital. One is justified in mentioning that in such a case, where there is a possibility of losing a considerable amount of this property. I felt bound to rise, because, as I have been working on the matter on behalf of royalty owners, I felt it was not right for me, when we heard these statements made, to sit still and go away for the
holidays and not ask the Prime Minister to give us fair consideration as honest and upright citizens.

Sir R. THOMAS: I should like to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister because it happens that the policy which he has enunciated here to-day is the policy upon which I fought my election. I represent a colliery constituency in North Wales, and I had an opponent who was the secretary of the North Wales Miners Federation. That gentleman advocated very strongly nationalization during the election. Therefore, I can say with truth that my election was fought mainly on the question of nationalisation. I advocated, more or less, the same policy as that put forward by the Prime Minister to-day, namely, co-operation between the employers and the employed. That found acceptance amongst the great bulk of the miners of North Wales, with the result that I was returned by one of the biggest majorities in the country, no less than 14,000. The right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) has sounded a very unfortunate note in his speech to-night. As a rule my right hon. Friend is very wise in his utterances, but I think it was un wise on his part to assume that the employer is not going to co-operate with the employé on the committee of management into the condition of the mines. He has no right to assume that the employer will not do that. I think he ought to encourage and give that principle a trial before taking such a drastic step as the nationalisation of an industry which is going to affect every other industry in the country. If we are to try an experiment in nationalisation, let us start with some industry that will not injure other industries. Let us start with some side industry and try the experiment on that, and not upon an industry which affects the whole business and the whole life of the country.
I regretted to hear the Prime Minister mention that he did not propose to give the miners power in the executive management. I think that in our dealings with Labour we ought to treat them openly and honestly. We ought to put our cards on the table and let the miner understand the whole working of the industry. Let him appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of working the industry. All these collieries are not making money. There are many collieries which are not profit producing. There are others which are making handsome profit. It is essential
that the miners should understand what the profits are and what the losses are. In other words, the employer should trust the British working man and the British, working man will not be found wanting. What we want to inspire in this country—I am now speaking as a business man who has employed hundreds of men—is confidence. If we can inspire confidence between employer and employé we shall solve all our difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery has sounded a wrong note, and that is the chief reason why I have risen to reply. I deprecate any attempt to create suspicion either on the part of the employer or on the part of the employé Let us give this proposal which the Government has brought forward a trial. Let us leave the working men and the employers to solve these problems and increase production, which is absolutely essential to the prosperity of the country.

Mr. CLYNES: The immediate cause of my rising is to make reference to the situation which has arisen from the re cent police strike, but before touching upon that them I should like to associate myself with the observations of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) as to the extraordinary course that Parliamentary form is now taking in relation to the Adjournment discussion. I am not claiming to be a very old Member of the House, but having been here for thirteen years I recall that, in the main, until quite recently, Adjournment dates at different period of the Session were used chiefly to afford ordinary Members of the House an opportunity to raise many questions which they had no chance of bringing for ward during the ordinary course of the Session, and which could not be done properly by question and answer. It is a serious and a further invasion of the rights of private Members to have these large questions of Government policy brought before us when there is no real opportunity for us to debate the great issues raised. This portends no good. Democratic government is further enfeebled by taking away from the House of Commons the opportunity of discussing great deliverances such as those placed before us by the Prime Minister this afternoon. We are to adjourn to-night. The Motion which will be carried to-night with the numbers behind it which support the Government precludes discussion to-morrow, and we are sent
out, according to the order of the Prime Minister, to take the opinion of the country on big issues which this House has had no chance fully to discuss. I think the reference of the Prime Minister to agriculture shows a lack of a sense of proportion on the part of the Prime Minister in relation to the functions of this House in matters of present-day government. He has informed us that shortly or some time in the immediate future he will address a meeting in the country representative of agriculture, and will there announce questions of policy which may not be in his mind to-day or which may not at this moment have been properly concluded. Great questions of this sort, affecting, as he said, what is still the biggest business or industry in this country, the business of agriculture, should be dealt with here. This is the proper place for announcements of great policies and for inviting fresh discussion on the Government's announcements.
There is one conclusion on the speech of the Prime Minister which if I offer it will ensure for me a great deal of agreement, and it is that since the War, in matters of industry and trade and business, we have been obliged to deal rapidly and in a very short time with what it would have been well for the country if employers of labour had agreed to do gradually and bit by bit in years gone by. It is merely stating a fact of history to say that employers of labour did not concede advances in wages, or concessions with regard to improved conditions of ser vice, or reduced hours, to make the work lighter or more agreeable, except in response to two forms of pressure: one was the threat of the trade unions to strike, and the other was the instrument of the law when the law had to be used against them to compel them to make improvements. So that throughout in the relations between employers and employed a great deal of bad blood has been engendered and the doctrine of force has been considered as the one policy that could succeed so far as organised labour is concerned.
Now we find ourselves after the War in conditions of a very different temper and frame of mind on the part of the masses of the workers from what they were before the War. In short, workmen will not now submit to conditions to which they submitted year after year for years before
the War began. Accordingly, the Government is faced with the necessity of interfering with employers and employed and trying, through the agency of legislation, to allay discontent and compose the differences which occur so constantly. There are many causes, for instance, to account for the reduced output to which the Prime Minister referred so frequently, and indeed it is necessary for him to refer to it, and for all Ministers who speak with knowledge and authority to continue to warn the country against the danger in which particularly an exporting and importing country like ours is placed on account of this state of reduced output. But there are several causes to account for that to which he did not refer. To mention only one. Take the reduced hours of work. I confess that the demands made by considerable numbers of workmen for shorter hours of work since the War closed have gone beyond even the pre-war ambitions of labour. They were then content with the ideal of an eight-hours day. What is the explanation of this? It is that workmen have seen this country revealing a wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. They have seen men grow even richer as a result of the War. They have seen trades and businesses revived and re-established and placed upon a level of prosperity as a mere by-product of the War, and they have seen every class in the country—I speak, of course, apart from those who made the appalling sacrifice of life or limb in connection with naval or military service—derive consider able profits from the trade or business to which the War gave rise; and naturally men who would have been well content with an eight-hour day before the War are asking now for a seven-hour and even for a six-hour day. But I would suggest to the Prime Minister that reduced hours of labour in respect to manufacture and trade need not in themselves be the cause of reduced output of volume of product.
Before the War there were many examples of employers of labour in this country with real patriotism and public spirit willing to go ahead of the mass of employers. I need not mention names, but they will occur to the minds of hon. Members who listen to me, and they will recall some of the most successful employers of labour, successful in the sense of being able to return great sums to their shareholders or to themselves and vastly to expand their business. Those were the men who led the way in establishing
standards of labour far above and far better than that of the majority of employers of labour. They established an eight-hour day. They gave holidays. They gave consideration to the workers that was not at all common. The only conclusion to which I wish to draw attention in this matter is that none of those employers ever proposed to go back to long working hours. The results of reducing hours, coupled with reorganisation and improved systems of output and manufacture, as a rule, left those employers well content to go on with reduced hours of labour. I listened with the greatest care to what the Prime Minister had to say with regard to what might be called the reform of the mining trouble. I gather that it is not the intention of the Government to nationalise the mines, and the conclusion I have reached is that the scheme which was explained by the Prime Minister blends all the bad points of the system of nationalisation so far as they might exist and the system of private ownership so far as they exist now, and I doubt whether the Government can adhere to this line any more than they are able to adhere to the main outlines of their plan for dealing with profiteering which the House has just considered. I trust that opinion in the country on this point will tend more properly to balance the judgment of the Government and of the Prime Minister before the House is called upon to deal with the question by legislation.
I am glad to see the Home Secretary present, so that he may hear the few words that I wish to utter in relation to the police trouble. It has formed some part of the industrial disturbance not unconnected with the statement of the Prime Minister to-day, and therefore is not out of place in a discussion of this kind. I would suggest that it is now appropriate to consider what step can be taken by the Government, either in relation to the police in the Metro polis or in some advisory way, or by way of suggestion in relation to the police who may be under the control of local authorities in centres like Liverpool, Birmingham, or elsewhere. So far as the Government had a clear object in the policy they have pursued during the last few weeks in this House, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that that object has been attained. That is to say, that the dispute may be regarded as practically having been brought to an end, and that a state of things approaching something
like order and system has been properly established in connection with our police force. I had better try to clear up misapprehensions which have been reflected in newspaper comments and in the country, and which, I have no doubt, exists in relation to those Members with whom I act on this side of the House and myself in relation to this trouble. It is not for me to enter into any elaborate criticism of those who were at the head of the Police Union. I limit myself, there fore to saying that, had they accepted the advice which we had repeatedly tendered to them, nothing of what has happened would have or could have occurred, and that no one was more bitterly disappointed or surprised than we were when we knew that this strike had taken place, and that the opportunity of arranging matters—if I may use that term—as between the proposal of the Government and the needs of the men, had been lost. That fact, how ever, ought not to prevent us from taking up the case. I pursue this matter now, not because I approve at all of what has been done, but because I feel keenly the sense of individual loss which some 2,000 or 3,000 of these policemen are suffering—a loss which, I say, will do the Government no good and in no sense improve the loyalty or the value of the police force as a whole, but a loss which will continue to embitter very much the relations between the Government and organised labour unless the matter is taken in hand.
I want to put in a plea now for reason able consideration, for clemency, if I may use the word, indeed, for justice, to those men who have been led into a position giving rise to a greater degree of personal loss than most of us in this House can imagine. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) will later deal with some outstanding matters in the Liverpool area. I limit myself to the general situation, and I say that the right hon. Gentleman could now, with out any risk whatever to the discipline of the force, to the public interest, or to the loyalty of the men, take into account the enormous sacrifices, amounting to a condition of extreme victimisation, which these men will have to suffer unless some more reassuring announcement is made by the Home Secretary. The position really was this. There was no ballot, there was no authorised decision of the men collectively. It was a new trade union, and a spirit of revolt had undoubtedly been created by the form of
appeal made by the men. The signal was given, and the men who responded to such a signal, it may be taken—I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me in this—were the men who, in the main, were amongst the best of the police men, not necessarily what are termed agitators and disloyalist, but men who responded to the initial trade union call made to them. I say that the Government cannot altogether rid itself of blame for what these men did.
These men were not denied the right of a trade union when they first proceeded to establish one. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour presided some months ago at a conference called by the Government, and there the Policemen's Union was represented. The chairman of the union spoke at this conference, presided over by the Minister of Labour, and the conference was attended by the Prime Minister and addressed by him. There was then no repudiation of the rights of the policemen to organise themselves into a trade union. The men were led to the conclusion that the Government did not intend to deny the right which has been usually exercised by all other wage-earners in this country. In the circumstances, I trust that the Government, having secured its object will reach the conclusion that to impose this dismissal, accompanied by the sacrifice of all that these men have by their past services secured for themselves, in the way of accumulated pay or pensions, is a degree of personal punishment not warranted by the offence. I trust he will see his way to revise these cases, and that he will admit these men back to the police force.

Mr. SEXTON: I want to supplement the appeal made by my right hon. Friend. I am speaking now from a local point of view as affecting the city of Liverpool. I happen to be a member of the Watch Committee of Liverpool. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not subscribe, and never subscribed, to the policy that brought about such disastrous results to the members of the police force. I think the House will remember that at the outset of the business I expressed my direct opposition to the police having an ordinary trade union on industrial lines. I have not changed that opinion yet. I do say, how ever, that now the soreness has somewhat worn off, now that we have come to calmer moments, there are certainly many
cases where these men deserve special consideration. The Home Secretary knows I was a member of the Committee which inquired into the conditions of the police all over the United Kingdom. Our Report gave very generous terms to the police. There is no fault found with that Report. The men themselves accepted it whole-heartedly, and very property so. I would commend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that there are men who have served twenty-five and twenty-six years. They sacrifice a lot, whether on principle or because of intimidation I am not quite prepared to say. I would urge that these men should have consideration with respect of their pensions. I do not wish to belittle the new men who have been appointed to the Liverpool police force, but I want respectfully to say that in comparison with the men who have left the new men will not be able to do the duty of the old men for years to come. Petitions have been already got up by the inhabitants and shopkeepers calling attention to this particular fact. The right hon. Gentleman will say that the policeman who is capable of being intimidated is not capable of being a good policeman. When a railway strike occurred in this city and in other places, no difficulty was made about taking back the men who were then affected.
The House and the people were glad to recognise that the men who were going back and that there was not one solitary man victimised in that big railway strike which upset the whole social life of the City for days. I do not say that policemen are on the same level; but I do say that these men are now sorry for it and are willing to express their regret for what they did. While I do not defend in one iota their conduct, I do say that the time has come for an amnesty, at all events with respect to the men of ten years ser vice and over, and the men who have left the police and whose time ought to count for them. I respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he should reconsider the matter, now that all the heated blood has gone. It has taken me all my time to keep the peace in Liverpool owing to this very thing. Meetings have been called, and there has been talk of a general stop page of work for three days. So far as I am concerned, that stoppage will not take place if I can help it. However, the feeling is there, and, although our men may disagree with the action of the police, they
consider that victimisation is a very severe thing. That disturbed feeling is still going on, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give reconsideration to the whole question.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends. On the subject of reinstatement let me say at once that the Government must adhere to their decision that any question of reinstatement is out of the question. It is not a question of punishment, but of the fitness of the men to be policemen at all. I cannot admit for one instant, when you are considering reinstatement, that a man of ten years' service and upwards is more entitled to consideration than the man who has only just joined the service. To my mind the man who has been in the service for ten years and upwards and allows himself to be intimidated or persuaded, or whatever you like, to indulge in a strike of this sort has proved himself to be unfitted to be a policeman. The younger man who has been in the service for, say, a couple of years and was led to do this, it may be from want of experience or thoughtlessness, one might have reinstated him and given him another chance; but the man of experience found guilty of taking part in a strike of this description is not fit to be a policeman. Therefore I am afraid I must adhere absolutely to the decision to which I have come—that reinstatement is out of the question. We know perfectly well that ninny of these people were induced to come out by being persuaded that the Government dare not refuse to reinstate them, that they were perfectly safe, that all they had got to do was to strike, and that the Government would be forced to give way. We have just passed through a period of five years when the Government in some cases had to give way and could not help themselves. The spirit that believed that has grown, and if there were no other reason why the Government should adhere to their decision, it would be that the belief has grown that you have only got to threaten any Government and that the Government are bound to give way.

Mr. SEXTON: We do not subscribe to that.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SHORTT: I know that the hon. Member does not, but that was played
upon by those who were responsible for the strike of the police. There are a certain number of men of standing, who for some reason chose to join in this strike. They have lost their pension rights and years of service. I agree their loss is severe, but then so far as I have been able to ascertain they are a small number amongst those who have chosen to dismiss themselves. I have stated—though of course I have no control in these matters over the provincial police—so far as the London police are concerned if any hon. Member will bring me any case of particular individual hardship I will see what can be done to assist, but reinstatement is impossible. Many of them are men who, while not fitted to be policemen, are perfectly well fitted for other walks in life, and would do their work in a perfectly trustworthy way. We are giving them characters that will ensure them taking positions.
I cannot admit for a second what my right hon. Friend said, that the men who struck were some of the best of the police, or words to that effect. As a matter of fact, we know they were nothing of the sort. There were some good men among them I agree, some mistaken men, but I unhesitatingly say that a large proportion of those who struck are men of whom the force is well rid. But at the same time, in the case of men of good character who want to get work, we will do our best to help them. The Watch Committee of Liverpool, having seen what I stated, said that they would do the same. More than that we cannot do; it is quite impossible. I regret to take up what may seem to some, perhaps, a vindictive line. It is not vindictive. I can assure hon. Members it is not a matter of vindictiveness, but it is a matter of securing a police force which is a really efficient and reliable force. I believe the police appreciate that, and that a strike of the kind is absolutely incompatible with the conditions which they have undertaken. They are the guardians of the peace, they have great power, they have undertaken great responsibilities, and I believe that they appreciate that position, and that theirs is not the role of any ordinary industrial worker in any sense of the word. Railwaymen are totally different. The reinstatement of railwaymen is the natural course of settling a railway strike, and the reinstatement of any industrial workmen is the
natural course of settling an industrial strike. But that position in the police force is absolutely impossible. If men insist on being industrial workers, they have their choice, and can leave. I have no doubt many perfectly honest, honourable men have made that choice, and everything we can do to help them we will do, but reinstatement to the police force is absolutely impossible.

Mr. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the men will receive their back pay recommended in our Report?

Mr. SHORTT: That is entirely a matter for the local people to consider, but they are not entitled to a penny of it. Speaking from recollection, and I do not pledge my memory, by an Act, I think, of 1859, or, at any rate, one of the Police Acts, any policeman who does not go on duty, as these men did not, forfeits all right to any arrears of pay of any sort or description. Anything they get in the way of back pay is a pure matter of grace. By law they are not entitled to a farthing.

Mr. CLYNES: May I put one question? The Home Secretary has mentioned that the cases where men are called upon to suffer any serious financial loss in respect of their pensions are very few indeed. May I suggest that, if that is so, it makes it all the more easy for him to deal with that side of the case, and that if he did deal with these few cases it would at least go some way towards meeting the case we have made out,

Mr. SHORTT: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means deal with them financially, as there can be no question of reinstating them. Financially, I have said that any case of peculiar individual hardship that is brought before me I will look into, consider it and do the best I can. The Liverpool people have said they will do the same. One may as well speak plainly, but it is a pure matter of grace. They are entitled to nothing, but at the same time we do not want to press things too hardly, and any case that is brought before me I certainly will consider, and I may say consider sympathetically, but I cannot pledge myself more than that.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: There were perhaps some subjects which the Prime Minister did not touch upon this afternoon which many of us would have liked him to speak about. Nevertheless, there
were in his speech certainly some things which inspired me with a very considerable amount of hope, and I should like to touch upon two of the matters which he dealt with and in which I have been interested actively for a great many years. In the first place, the Prime Minister touched on the very important subject of profit sharing and co-partnership in industry. Thirty years ago I was a manufacturer in the North, but only for a short time, and I was thoroughly convinced at that time, and have been thoroughly convinced ever since, that it was necessary to give, as the Prime Minister said to-day, some direct voice to the working men in the control of their industry and the conditions under which they work, and also some direct interest in the result of their work; and ever since I have been out of business I have been actively engaged in trying to make known those principles and the great successes which those principles have achieved where they have been tried. It was, therefore, a great encouragement to me, and I believe to many others, to hear the Prime Minister say to-day that those subjects deserve to be reconsidered without any of the prejudice which has grown up about them in the past, and that the Government will use its influence to get them reconsidered both by employers and employed. I wish to emphasise this point, that there is no conflict really between the proposal of nationalisation and the proposal of profit-sharing and co-partnership. They are applicable in different ways, but they are not in conflict. Even if you have nationalisation of certain industries, I believe it to be essential that you should also give to the workers in those industries some voice in the control of the conditions under which they work. They are more directly interested than the average member of the community, because they spend their lives there, and therefore besides any voice they get as citizens they ought to have a direct and special voice in the control of the conditions under which they are working, and I venture to think that it will be essential to give them also a direct share in the profit or the enonomy of the work which they are doing. That would be just to them if they do their duty to the State, and it would be in the interest of the State as a very natural means of getting the best service.
But quite apart from the industries which may be nationalised, it is tolerably evident that for a long time to come, what-
ever views we may take of nationalisation in this country as a theory, there will be a very large volume of industry that will not be nationalised, and there certainly the need for giving to the workers a direct interest in the economy of those industries, and a direct voice in the control of the conditions under which they are working, can, I think, hardly be doubted by anybody who will consider the matter dispassionately. Again, there is nothing inconsistent there with trade unionist principles. Trade unions demand a standard wage and standard conditions for the workers, but when you have given the standard wage and standard conditions, then comes the opportunity of adding profit-sharing and co-partnership, with great advantage to employers, to employed, and to the whole community. I might give many examples of the success of experiments of this kind—hundreds of examples and volumes of business running into many millions. There is one particular class of industry where there are nearly forty companies practising this system, and where the total of their capital exceeds £50,000,000. Many of the greatest and most successful businesses in this and other countries practise this system. We who have been working for it for many years do not ask the Government to force this modification of industry upon the community. All we ask is that the Government should help to make it known and should collect all the statistics, and we welcome the suggestion of the Prime Minister, if I understood him aright, that there might be some action by the Government to invite both employers and employed to consider it. I would add that, in my view, the system of co-partnership will never be complete until the interests of the consumers also be included, in a threefold co-partnership of employers, employed, and consumers. If the association which has been working for this great cause so long can be of any assistance to the Government with any information or experience that they have, I hope I should not be presumptuous in saying that we humbly offer to the Government any possible aid that we can give in this matter.
There is another and, for the moment, a much more pressing matter on which the words of the Prime Minister gave me considerable hope as I listened to him to-day, and that is where he referred to the Caucasus. The hope came after a time of great anxiety. For the last week those who are specially interested in that
part of the world, and above all in the Armenians, have been feeling that the withdrawal of our troops from there was opening out a prospect certainly of bloodshed, probably of a massacre on an enormous scale, and, perhaps, of the final wiping out of the Armenian race. But the Prime Minister certainly spoke in a hopeful way to-day, and, if I may say so with respect, he seemed fully to realise the immense responsibilities which depended upon the action of the British Government in this matter. He said these words which struck me very much. He said, We have not yet got peace with Turkey; we have not been able to get peace with Turkey yet, because we have not got America's answer as to what she will do in sharing the responsibilities of that part of the world, but until we have peace with Turkey we must occupy what was Turkish territory.
I venture to suggest that what the Prime Minister said with regard to Asiatic Turkey applies equally to the district of the Caucasus. Of course, I am quite aware that the district of the Caucasus in that connection was not part of the Turkish dominions, and therefore I cannot seize on the words of the Prime Minister as any pledge with regard to the Caucasus, and I do not wish to do so; but I say the future of the Caucasus and Asiatic Turkey are inextricably bound up together. Asia Minor, in the interior parts, away from the influence of the British Fleet, is a perfect powder magazine at the present time. You have Turkish generals, Turkish officials of all sorts, agents of the Young Turk Party, in large numbers pervading that district, organising rebellion against the Great Powers, and organising all the exaggeration of Mahomedan fanaticism to the danger of the peace and the very great danger of the Christian races that live there. A gentleman of very great eminence recently travelled a thousand miles in that part of Asia Minor, where the Entente Powers do not reach at the present time, and his evidence is that there the more truculent elements in Mahomedanism—I am not saying anything against Mahomedanism as Mahomedanism, or Mahomedans as a whole—but the more truculent elements were threatening death and destruction against Armenians and other Christians. It is well known that Enver Pasha is somewhere in that part of the world, either in the Caucasus or Northern Persia, and only to-day, or yesterday, we heard that his brother has
escaped from Constantinople. People of this sort are pervading that part of the world, and are prepared to bring about revolt and massacres—to have one final fling, one final effort of revenge upon their enemies, if they can do no more. They say, "We know we shall be beaten, but we are going to have one final revenge upon our enemies." I say the Late of the. Caucasus is inextricably linked up with the fate of Asia Minor. If it becomes known that we have retired from the Caucasus, then every element of fanaticism among our enemies will be encouraged and excited, and the whole country—both the Caucasus and Asiatic Turkey—I am convinced, and those who know the country are convinced, will be reduced to a state of chaos and a state of butchery.
Therefore, I say that until the peace is settled, and the part America is going to play is settled, it is our duty to occupy the necessary parts of Asiatic Turkey. It is equally our duty and equally our interest that we should see that peace and order are maintained in the Caucasus as well. You cannot leave the Caucasus to a state of chaos without exploding the powder magazine which exists in Anatolia at the present time. I will say more than that. I will say that we have a duty to these people. It is true we have at times helped the Armenian race in the past, and it is equally true we have inflicted a great wrong and injury upon them. It is we who prevented Russia about the year 1880 from liberating the whole Armenian race from the tyranny of the Turks. We have no right to forget that. We owe them a debt. I am not going over old history or the massacres to which the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin referred to-day. I will only point out that, after those massacres, some 250,000 or 300,000 refugees escaped to the North and went to that part of Armenia which was Russian territory, and there found refuge and help. Since 1917 that part of the Caucasus has been an independent Republic, although it is not yet formally acknowledged, and at the Armistice, England, for military reasons, was in possession of that part of the country. In the Armenian Republic of Erivan alone were 2,000,000 people, and there were, of course, other millions of Georgians and Tartars and other races in the Caucasus. Our troops remained there after the Armistice, not to take part in any civic war, not to fight for one side against
another, but to maintain impartial justice and peace amongst all those populations, and, to a great extent, they have succeeded. Of course, in the turbulent conditions following war and famine, it is impossible they should succeed completely, but to a great extent they did succeed in maintaining peace and order in that region.
We are told that the British Government, finding it impossible to bear this burden permanently; told the Great Powers, and in particular the United States of America, last March, that they would have to evacuate this country. Whom did they tell? They may have told the Great Powers within the secrecy of the council room. They may have told the United States delegate. But did they tell the British public, and did they tell the American public? I think not. I, at any rate, follow these matters as closely as most people, and all I had learnt was that the English were going to retire, and the Italian troops were going to take their place, and it was only just a week ago that it was first known in this country that the Italian troops were not going to take the place of the British troops when they retired. That makes all the difference. As an Englishman, of course, I have more trust, naturally, in British troops than in any others. At the same time, we knew the great necessity for economising both in men and money. We knew that absolutely, and when we were told it was necessary for British troops to be brought back, and that Italian troops were to take their place, we felt we must submit, although it was not what we should have wished. But when we were told that no troops were going to take their place, it was an utterly different thing, because it meant certainly bloodshed, probably massacres, and possibly the wiping out of whole populations. Nevertheless, we are told that it is impossible for this country to maintain permanent protection. We are also told that the Government have been pressed to leave, but that now we are going to leave, everybody says that we must not do it. It is all very well for the Government to be economical—and we are all very glad of it—but it is a strange thing that their first great economy seems to arise at a point where it means the loss of such an enormous number of human lives. It reminds me—it is the great thing reminding one of the small thing—of what happened to some friends of mine in Egypt who had a
native servant who used to do their shopping. They considered that ho paid extravagant prices, and reproved him, telling him that he must be more economical. A few days afterwards he had to buy a piece of furniture, and he bought it very cheap. They complimented him, and he said, "Oh, yes, the owner was very poor, and almost starving and dying, and was therefore obliged to take the low price I offered him." That is a grim story, but the action of the Government reminds me a little of it. When they were pressed to economise, their idea of a first great economy was found in a place where it would mean the sacrifice of an enormous number of human lives. I think that the pressure which has been brought to bear upon the Government to retire from Northern Russia is entirely a different matter from the position in Southern Russia. I would most earnestly bring to the attention of the Government that in Northern Russia we are taking part in a civil war; taking one side, and fighting against the other side. It may be right or it may be wrong. I have never taken part in that controversy, and I am not to-night suggesting it is right or wrong; but that is a very different position and totally unlike the position in Southern Russia. In the Caucasus we are not and have not been taking part in a civil war. We have been there maintaining peace and order impartially amongst all the races. The best of all those races desire that we should remain there, whether it is the Tartars, the Georgians, or the Armenians. They have petitioned to that effect, because they know that if we go the turbulent elements of all those races will beat one anothers' throats in a minute. If we do go, well, I have spoken already of the general effects of our withdrawal; but I would point out in particular the effect it will have on the great civilising work that America has carried out in that part of the world in the last 100 years.
America has covered that country with missions, not only religious, but scholastic, hospitals, and orphanages. At the present moment the American Society is looking after 45,000 children in the Caucasus. If we go away, all that work is destroyed. Food cannot even be got to them. They have not got food this year, because they were not able to sow their crops last year, and if our troops come away the more lawless elements amongst the Georgians will complete the work that they have already begun or threatened to begin.
These people cannot get food, many of them will perish, and the work of the Americans, both in the Caucasus and Anatolia will be destroyed, and practically the civilising work of 100 years will to a very large extent be wiped out. There will be chaos in the Caucasus and in Asia Minor. I fully agree we cannot go on spending in that country. What I plead for is not permanent occupation; I plead against premature withdrawal. I ask that there should be an interval of definite warning allowed to be given not merely to the Governments but to the great publics of this country and of the United States to the effect that the withdrawal will take place at a certain time unless some arrangement can be made with others of the great Powers for sharing the burden, which it is unreasonable that we should go on bearing entirely by ourselves.
When we hear talk of the United States sharing in the cost we must not forget that the United States, by means of private contributions, have borne an immense amount of the cost for the people of that part of the world, in the Caucasus, and in Asia Minor, and that they have within quite recent times spent at least £6,000,000 in helping those people against famine—and keeping them alive. Therefore we are not to suppose that America has done but little I believe that America, when once the facts are known to the people, will see that the American Government comes forward and bears its full share of the responsibility and expenditure in this matter. And if by any chance anything should prevent a measure of relief going through Congress, then the Americans themselves, by voluntary subscription, will collect the money. We want time, and I implore the Government to allow time, in order that this matter may be settled without the massacre or suffering which we fear. I am quite sure of this: that if they do not allow time then when the results which are to be feared have come about, the great American and English peoples will be extremely angry against those who have rendered themselves responsible for such a result. It will not be enough to say: we gave notice in the privacy of the Council to such and such a Minister, or to such and such an Ambassador. The people will want to know why they were not consulted, for surely if ever there was a matter for open diplomacy rather than for secret diplomacy, this is that matter!
Ultimately, I have no doubt—so I am advised by those who know the country—
that all that country maybe organised under gendarmerie drawn from the peoples and races there under English and American officers. A corps of Kurdish gendarmerie may be organised to maintain order amongst the Kurds, and of Tartars amongst the Tartars; and that is probably as far as the principle of nationality and self-determination can be carried under the circumstances of these backward countries. That, of course, will take time. Meanwhile, it is absolutely necessary that someone or more of the great Powers should maintain order there to preserve the better and more peaceful elements of those races from the destruction which will be brought upon them by the more savage elements of those races. I trust before we part to-night we shall hear from one of the members of the Government an even fuller and more complete assurance than we have had on this matter; because we cannot say that what the Prime Minister said was complete or very clear. It was hopeful. But I trust we shall have something more given to us, and that we shall have an assurance that a reasonable time will be allowed before any complete withdrawal takes place from the Caucasus.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I join most heartily in the appeal just made by my hon. Friend to the Government about Armenia. I know very well the pressure which has been put upon the Government to reduce the expenditure of the country, which by universal admission, is bringing the country face to face with financial disaster. But I think I can assure the Leader of the House, from my knowledge of the character and feelings of the British people, that they would not begrudge that few millions of their money in the duty of protecting these Armenians from massacre. I should like also, as a friend of the American people, as warm as there is anywhere, having myself addressed many meetings on Armenians and their sufferings to American audiences, from my place in this House to make an appeal to the American people and the American Government. I can say that there is no cause which has ever made a more successful and a more poignant appeal to the sympathy of the American people than the cause of the Armenians. The House would be rather surprised, I am sure, to know of the abundant machinery which
the Americans have set up towards gathering funds for the relief of the Armenians. There is not a Sunday-school in America in which there is not made a weekly collection for the Armenians. Great as has been the subscriptions in this country to all good causes, and to the cause of the Armenians—on whose behalf my hon. Friend who has just spoken has been to the forefront—the effect is insignificant by the side of the subscriptions from America. No less a sum than £6,000,000 sterling has been contributed in voluntary subscriptions by the Americans towards the relief of the Armenian people.
I had the advantage, the other day, of hearing from an American a brief description of the work in which he had just been engaged, and I never remember to have been more deeply moved than when I heard him describe how 25,000 Armenian orphans and 750,000 Armenian adults were dependent for their daily small ration of bread upon the subscriptions of the splendid organisation the Americans had established in that part of the world. It is nearly a century since a few Irishmen, belonging to a college in America, started out to establish the American missions in Armenia. I have seen their work, and I can say that I believe these missions have done more excellent work in Christianising, educating, civilising, and preserving the people of this race than any other nation in the world.
I strongly urge the American people to take note of the manifestations we have been trying to make in this country as to the imminent danger to the Armenian population. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of it, but I think there is very good ground for believing that deliberate agencies and organisers of massacre in those regions at this moment are plotting to have the work of destruction to which they set their hands before completed. I believe if this question of withdrawal from the Caucasus depended upon money sufficient funds given by the generous people of America and of this country towards solving the problem would be forthcoming in that way. I know that is not the way to do it, but these questions require Government action and Government money, and I hope if this Debate be reported in America the opinion of the people will be roused to the imminent danger, not merely of the massacre of these people, but to the
undoing of the excellent work of a century to which many American people have devoted their lives. There has been a great division of opinion with regard to the intervention of our troops in Russia, but there has been no such division of opinion with regard to keeping our troops in the Caucasus; in fact, an opinion in favour of that course has been expressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and by my hon. Friend who represents the Liberal Members of this House (Mr. A. Williams), and I am sure that opinion will be confirmed by the Leader of the Liberal party in this House (Sir D. Maclean). An addition, an hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who I should think represents the very extreme of resentment in regard to the intervention of our troops in Russia, has joined in the appeal to keep our troops temporarily in the Caucasus for the protection of the Armenians.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: An international force?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes; an international force. I do not mind whether they are Italians or Americans. The Prime Minister said that before we could deal with these things we wanted the Americans to ratify the Treaty. I think the American people are predestined to take up this matter. She has not the vast expenditure with which we are still burdened, and she would not be open to the same suspicion as if we took the government of Turkey in our hands. Why is there this delay in America taking up the matter? Is the answer not very plain? The demand that America should take up the control of the government of Turkey cannot precede the signing of the Treaty of Peace, and it must wait until the President has had the Peace Treaty ratified by the American Senate. Until then the American President is powerless to take up this matter I will not go into all the causes—I might perhaps be getting into an embarrassing discussion of the internal politics of America—but I can say that one of the causes—I do not say the only cause—of the delay in the ratification of the Treaty of Peace by the American Senate was the Irish question. [A laugh.] I hear laughter from some hon. Friend of mine on the opposite side of the House, but I say in all seriousness that the fact that all the men and women of the Irish race in
America are against certain portions of this treaty is exercising its influence, and if the American Senate is raising objection to some of the Clauses of the Treaty of Peace, whether just or unjust, I will not stop to discuss—it is not my business—if to-day the hands of the President are held up by the delay in ratifying the treaty, and if the establishment of the League of Nations be embarrassed and postponed, the responsibility rests upon the Gentlemen occupying the Treasury Bench opposite, and, above all, upon the Prime Minister.
I listened to-night, except for three or four minutes when I was called from the House, to the right hon. Gentleman's speech of about three hours' duration. I do not say that a moment of the time was wasted. I listened with the deepest attention to everything the Prime; Minister said, and I did not grudge him a moment of the time, but is it not a remarkable fact that in a speech of three hours dealing apparently with all the burdens and difficulties of the nation he should not find one second to deal with the question of Ireland, one of its most serious difficulties, and one of its greatest perils. Coldly, deliberately, arrogantly, insolently, the Prime Minister refused to say a word about Ireland. It was not by accident; it was done deliberately. It was in defiance of the opinion of this House, because the opinion of this House, with the exception of a small party of reactionaries composed of Irish Unionists and some English unionists, without any distinction of party, is that the Irish question must be confronted, and ought to be confronted, and ought to be settled. He knows the expectations with which we have been looking forward to some message of peace and hope for the Irish people. Deliberately, he has not said one word. That is an extraordinary canon and method of statesmanship. After all, Ireland has had to confront bigger men than the present Prime Minister, and it has broken bigger men. I was one of the majority of thirty five or forty years ago that broke down the Government of Mr. Gladstone after five years' struggle. I may be one of a majority that will still break down this Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is only a few days ago that I myself heard the Prime Minister, in this House, say that while he would deal with these questions it was impossible for him to deal with the
question of Ireland in his speech on the Motion of the Adjournment. There was nothing deliberate about it.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I should be very glad if I could accept that statement. Does anybody suppose that I wanted him to reveal the policy which is to be brought forward in the Autumn Session? I did not expect anything of the kind, but nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), whose courtesy and geniality I am sure recommends him personally to the esteem and goodwill of every Member of this House, that a word of grace and of hope and sympathy to a nation going through the agonies through which Ireland is going to-day might well be worth five or three minutes in a speech of three hours. What is the Irish position to-day? Take the incidents of the last few weeks. We have had riots, disturbances, and collisions. I am bound to say that I am told that these things have been somewhat exaggerated in the newspapers. For instance, although there was some trouble in Derry, it was mainly caused by young people who take advantage of moments of excitement to display an exuberance of vitality. Still it is bad. A good many Englishmen, at various stages of this controversy have held out as the true solution of the Irish difficulty the ideal of England, impartial, just, beneficent, arbitrating between warring factions, doing the best she can for Ireland. It is the ideal and foundation of our Government in India, and it is an old ideal, but in Ireland it is an impossible ideal. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said
Good Government is no substitute for self-Government.
If your agents in Ireland were archangels instead of men, Ireland would still demand that she should be governed by her own people instead of by people of another nationality, however well-meaning they may be. Is that taking place in Ireland? Is the English Government in Ireland to-day that calm, judicial, impartial, beneficent arbitrator between rival factions? Not at all. The minority, the intolerant minority, the ascendancy minority in Ireland govern Ireland. Instead of giving Ireland self-government, which is the law of the land since 1914, the self-government which must mean, of course, government by the majority by the people, you have substituted government of Ireland by the minority of the people.
Take the case of the North, to which attention has been drawn already—Colonel Hacket Pain—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Brigadier-General Hacket Pain!

Mr. O'CONNOR: I thought he was only a colonel, because I understand he has never had any service in the War outside the shores of Ireland. If you are only an Orangeman, then under the present regime you are sure of everything, whatever your merits may be. If you are a, briefless barrister, you are sure of the judgeship of the High Court. General Hacket Pain was chief of the staff of the Ulster Volunteers. Whether he took part in the actual gun-running I do not know. But he took part in the establishment of the Provisional Government at a public meeting. Now, I want equal justice for everyone on both sides. Here is this gentleman, who was a potential Radical a few years ago, now in command of the Northern Province. Look at two lists. In one we find men who never earned £500 a year at the Bar raised to the Supreme Court; we find others holding high positions in the Army. Is it a wonder that the Irish people should put in juxtaposition to men like these men who died for the love of Ireland, and who are now under the flags at Kilmainham Gaol? General Hacket Pain is in control of the forces there, and surely an equal measure of justice should be meted out to both sides. As Commander-in-Chief he is in charge of the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act. What is the meaning of that in that country? Under the powers of that Act a man can be brought before a court-martial for certain offences and be sentenced to one or two years' imprisonment. I presume General Hacket Pain has the nomination of the members of the court-martial who are to try his political opponents. Yet he is the man—the ex-rebel—who took part in preparing an Army to fight against the Crown of this country! Can hon. Members be surprised that there is discontent in Ireland when they find appointments filled with men like these, when they find Orangemen ruling the country, with a converted Liberal here and there by way of ekeing out the nudity of the Orange list? I deplore the disturbances in Ireland. I condemn the crimes committed there. I agree with our great leader who said that he who commits a crime gives his country to the enemy. But is Ireland to take
lying down a régime of the enemies of her race? If she did that she would be untrue to those long centuries of struggle by which she has defeated the efforts to break down her nationality in the past.
10.0 P.M.
I am a reader of newspapers, and I find the Irish papers a little more interesting and a little more painful than the English Press. I read sometimes half a column or a column of trials before Courts-martial, and I find men sent to prison for a year or two years, and for what? I have here the case of a man who was sent to prison for two years for the possession of a revolver. It may be that he held it for a criminal purpose. I do not know. If that was the charge it should have been made and proved in a civil court. But for the possession of one revolver, an Irish Nationalist, one of the majority of the Irish people, was sent to prison for two years. There are worse cases than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Galway brought me from there the story of a poor, highly nervous, highly sensitive ballad singer who was sent to prison for singing a song which has as much political meaning in Ireland as has "Auld Lang Syne" in Scotland. It is a song which I have heard sung since I was a babe. It was sung in celebration of a man who died for the liberty of Ireland—a not unworthy sentiment. It was even sung at a little ban quet downstairs, in the presence of the then prime Minister, of this country (Mr. Asquith) who showed his enjoyment by his loud applause. Yet this poor devil in Ireland was sent to jail for singing it there.
Let me return to the case of the man who was sent to prison for having possession of a revolver. Here again we have a strange contrast. General Hacket Pain is the gentleman responsible, I believe, for the possession of the arms of the Ulster Volunteers at this moment, arms which were obtained from Germany. I wonder the Editor of "John Bull" has not had a word to say about these dealings with Germans before the War. This gentleman, who is now Commander of that province, has surrendered his own arms. The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury recently declared that these arms were in the control of the Ordnance Department, and therefore were not under the control of this gentleman. But General Hacket Pain is in charge of all the departments of the Army in the North, so that you have here the extra-
ordinary spectacle of an ex-rebel in possession of arms for an army which was to make war on the Crown of this country, and still holding custody of them, while a poor devil of an Irish Nationalist is sent to prison for two years because he is in possession of a revolver. I ask my hon. Friends, who represent English constituencies, suppose this thing had happened in England do they think it would be unknown to the masses of the English people? One of my hon. Friends on the Benches above the Gangway, immediately after the refusal of the Government to take any notice of the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division on the 12th July last, said they were going to hold a thousand meetings of working men throughout England and Scotland and that at every one of those meetings the text of the discourse will be the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Need I dwell on the dangerous state of feeling that exist in many parts of this country? Need I dwell on the fact that many extreme and foolish men have been preaching the absolutely undemocratic doctrine of direct action, and need I point out, therefore, that these things cannot stop in Ireland. Doctrines are like thistle-down, they are carried on the wind from place to place and from country to country, and every man who preaches the doctrine of direct action by rebellion in Ulster is an apostle and an ally of the men who are preaching direct action in this country and is engaged in putting a match to a powder magazine of discontent and possible disaster.
Let me give another instance of how Ireland is governed to-day. I mentioned the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division. There was a Peace Review in Belfast the other day to celebrate the victory of the Allies. In the procession marched men of all religions, because Northern Catholics took their share as well as Northern Orangemen in fighting the battles of the Allies. This Peace celebration, which should have been free from all party passions was turned into an Orange demonstration. Lord French was there. A Field-Marshal was brought over who was an Orangeman. Is it not a pernicious and perilous state of things that great officers in the Army should be allowed to avow their political partisanship and even their alliance with rebel movements against the Crown and the
power of this House? That is what is going on in Ireland. Yet to-day the Prime Minister does not find time, in even a three hours' discourse, to give the Irish people the hope that this state of things is coming to an end. I have sought for an explanation of this. I cannot find it even in his political associates. I know them all. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is like many ladies who reach to a position of respectability and almost of piety in middle-age, but they have a past. I do not believe—I have no means of knowing what the opinions of my right hon. friend are—that he is in favour of a non possumus in regard to Ireland. What is the explanation? The Prime Minister has gone through a very hard and trying time, and I understand that he is to be in Brittany among his fellow Celts. I believe that Welshmen can understand the Breton of Brittany as the Breton of Brittany can understand the Welshman. The Prime Minister is not averse to public speaking on an appropriate occasion and amid dramatic and public surroundings. I have no doubt the Prime Minister will make some speeches to his fellow Celts. I wonder what he will talk about. Will he talk about the glories of the Celtic race? Will he talk about the self-determination of races? Will he talk, as he did in a meeting where he addressed his fellow Welsh-countrymen a few weeks ago, of the great contributions to the history of the world that have been made by the small nations? I do not know whether the Leader of the House read that speech. It would do him good to read it. It was a very fine speech indeed. The Prime Minister said that of all the sights he saw at the Peace Conference the one that made the deepest appeal to his emotions and to his admiration—his admiration and his emotions flow with a certain amount of freedom—was the spectacle of these long-oppressed little nations rising from the doom of servitude and coming to the resurrection of their liberty. He mentioned Poland, Alsace and Lorraine, Czecho-Slovakia, and Wales, but he never mentioned Ireland. That was almost as great a feat as his speech to- night. He spoke of the glories of restored liberty and of the contributions to the history, literature, and progress of the world made by the small nations and of all the emotions that rose in his bosom at that sight, and at the end of it all he made no mention of Ireland. If he makes that speech to a Breton
audience he may get some interruptions which will show him that, although he forgets Ireland, his fellow Celts will not forget her.
What has happened to the Prime Minister? I have here a letter he wrote to the Irish Convention in February, 1917, in which he pledged himself and the Leader of the House to a single Parliament for a United Ireland. Within two or three weeks after that he made several speeches in which he declared that self-determination was the principle for which this country was fighting and that in consistency and honour they were obliged to extend self-determination to Ireland, and that so convinced was he of this and, above all, so convinced was he of the necessity of doing it for the purpose of maintaining good relations with America, that he was determined there and then to bring in and push through a Bill giving Ireland self-government. That was in April, 1917. Note the date! The right hon. Gentleman's difficulties may be great to-day, but in April, 1917, we were in all the agonies of the successful push of the German troops. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I mean the last great push of the Germans. I may be forgiven for making a slight mistake. I was in America at the time trying to cheer up the hearts of our Allies and telling them, what I never doubted, that we were going to win in the end. This promise to push through a measure of self-government for Ireland was made in one of the blackest hours of our fortunes during the War. If the right hon. Gentleman had said then, "Every hour I am looking at telegrams. They bring new messages of peril to the nation. We are fighting for our very lives. We are going to win, but still we have bad quarters of an hour to go through," I should have regarded it as a legitimate excuse, but he did not do so. In spite of the darkness of the hour and the horrible and devastating responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the time he pledged himself to bring in and to pass there and then a measure of self-government for Ireland. Now, in August, 1919, when the black clouds have disappeared and we have achieved the security of our country and the safety of the liberty and civilisation of the world, I find the right hon. Gentleman possessed by what appears to be a paralysing look of vision and courage. I fail to recognise the Prime Minister I
knew in his earlier days. If there were any quality that gave him the great hold he had on the admiration of the masses of the people it was his courage, it was his vision, it was his promptitude. I saw him go through all the perils of the whole War, causes he took up exposed him to obloquy, to suspicion, and to the charge of want of patriotism and sometimes to the peril of his life from masses of his own fellow countrymen, but I never saw him waver. I was a humble comrade by his side in all the great struggles of his democratic Budget, and I never saw him waver. Where has all that courage gone? Where has all that vision gone? Is his great career, crowned by his energy and his courage and unfailing spirit in bringing this War to an end, going to disappear in these quiet and tranquil and comparatively easy times of peace? I pray all Members of this House to join with me in pressing upon the Prime Minister to take up another attitude towards Ireland. I have spent my life in trying to reconcile the people of England to the people of Ireland. My own people naturally have the first place in my heart, but I have the deepest affection for the English people. I want to bring them together. Why should they be apart? There is no natural antipathy between them. I do not think Irishmen are unpopular in this country. On the contrary, the two nations, differing as they are, are a useful complement to each other. When you have a proper system of self-government in Ireland, you will add to the great intellectual resources of your own country. We shall get from you what we lack, and give to you what you lack, and by so doing we may have a better and more wisely governed England than ever before. The tragedy of it is that the people want to come together and factions and Government keep them apart.
I was reading a book the other day by a distinguished Irishwoman of letters, Mrs. Tynan Hinkson, in which she described the military occupation of county Mayo after the rebellion. There were several English officers there who, despite the trouble and discord, had won the affections of the people. To-night the Prime Minister said justly, with the pride which I share as the British citizen, that nearly all the countries in the East beg us to leave our British soldiers there to safeguard their liberties and to preserve their rights. It
is not so in Ireland. This is one of the black exceptions to the repute and honour and the affection which we get from so many countries in the world. The lady to whom I have referred saw a beautiful young girl being taken by a policeman to a lunatic asylum. She was driven to terror and then to madness by the presence of the soldiers. This incident was recounted by the lady to the British officer who was in command, who happened to be a Scotsman, and he said to her "Do not rub it in," which revealed the shame, the humiliation and the sorrow which this conflict between Englishmen and Irishmen produces. I beg every Member and every party in this House to help me in my poor efforts to bring this disastrous misunderstanding to an end and to help to force the Government, even though it may be reluctant and slow, to realise the urgent necessity of giving Ireland a message of peace by a message of self-government.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: It would be quite against precedent had there been an adjournment at this stage without some reference to Ireland, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought that matter to the close attention of those who have been fortunate enough to listen to him. The question of Ireland is one that checks us in every Chancellory in Europe. It is a standing obstacle to the development of close relations with the United States, and is an unfailing source of scorn by those who desire to show that, whatever our pretensions are, we at home are not able to give self-government to those who need it. I hope that, when the Autumn Session comes, among the Herculean tasks which have been foreshadowed by the Prime Minister which will be taken in hand—indeed, it brooks no delay—will be that of tackling the problem of Ireland. We listened to-day to a speech of remarkable duration from the Prime Minister. I would have been pleased to take it in serial form, as that would have given the House the added pleasure of his attendance on at least three or four other occasions. I congratulate him on the physical vigour that enabled him to deliver such a speech, and I am sure that he will agree that a word of credit is also due to his audience.
The speech covered a very wide area, as we know, but it had some significant omissions, and the first thing which I would like to deal with, following the lines of the Noble Lord the Member for
Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), is a matter of vital importance. It is as to whether we are going to resume at the very earliest opportunity Cabinet Government in the old sense of the term. I do not mean a Cabinet of twenty-three, but I do mean that the time has arrived when the Cabinet should function with a proper number, say, ten or twelve, as the case may be, and form that effective link between this House and the Executive which long centuries have proved to be the form of Government best adapted to the British people. What will be the result if that is not done? One of the first results must be a continuance of extravagance in our national expenditure, because no one who has been a careful observer of the history of this House and its forms and powers can miss this fact, that it is entirely owing to the intimate, close personal touch of the Members and the Ministry, and the Prime Minister in particular as a Member of this House, that has given to the House of Commons its close grasp of the national finance. We shall press right through the Autumn Session that the Prime Minister shall once again take his place in the House of Commons.
The Leader of the House knows my feelings with regard to him, and, indeed, the feelings of the whole House, without any exception. He has performed difficult duties with great success, and, while maintaining his point of view all the while, he has carried with him the respect of the House of Commons, which is independent of party. I recognise that fully, just as he recognises the sincerity with which I speak. I say that quite advisedly. After all, it is the Prime Minister who is responsible. Let me tell the Prime Minister that I am quite certain of this: He will get quite as much benefit from associating here with us as we would have from his being here. As the Noble Lord said, truly, this is the place where the decisions ought to be taken, where in the end policies ought to be shaped, and I am certain that, his association with us here would enable him to find out what the House of Commons really is thinking. If the House of Commons, through its Prime Minister and its Cabinet and the Legislative Assembly—taking both Houses together—ceases to govern, it is a very dangerous outlook for the immediate future. We must get back to that intimate association of the House of Commons and the
Prime Minister and the Cabinet, which alone can carry us through the dangerous days that are yet to come.
Let me pass on, as briefly as possible, to say a word or two about expenditure and the need for retrenchment. With every word that the Prime Minister has said on that subject we heartily agree. I would say to the Government, "Give a lead." What have they done? It is now nine months since the Armistice, and six months since the Session began. No one will deny us this claim, at any rate, that whatever our merits or demerits may be—our demerits, I agree, are numerous and obvious—we have stuck to that point, we have endeavoured to press upon the House the great importance of national economy and the reduction of Government extravagance. What has been done? After all, we have heard fine phrases to-day, and we have heard them before, and we are hoping that when the Autumn. Session comes we shall have these estimates presented to us in a much reduced form. But why has something on a great-scale not been done before. Of course, the Prime Minister says we have been more or less at war. We noted what he said about the Duke of Wellington and the risks he took. I was extremely interested in that. What were the risks the Duke of Wellington took? There was nothing like the complete breakdown of the enemy when Wellington had finished his campaign, that there is to-day. I remember all about Waterloo, but the dangers were not more acute in Europe then than they are to-day
I wish that the Prime Minister had been here in the early days of this Session to hear the Secretary of State for War make his statement. It would have startled him. There was not a hint then that Germany had been struck down, Austria laid helpless, and the whole of our enemies completely out of action. What was the impression created by the speech of the Secretary for War? What were the words used? Full of grand military schemes and an appalling prospect which were backed up by the total of the estimates. The position then was one that any one who was thinking the thing out on steady lines of far-seeing common-sense could have observed. Those estimates were utterly unnecessary then. Now we know that the Government are going to take into careful consideration what they are to do in the autumn. Meanwhile the expenditure is
going on. That is the point. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, subject to some qualifications of course, our expenditure is something between £4,000,000 and £4,500,000 daily. I do not know that there is any change to-day. We are told the Air Force is to be cut down to about £15,000,000, if it is possible, but, in the name of common sense, if it is possible to do that, why was it necessary to bring in an Estimate of £66,000,000. These are the sort of matters about which the country is anxious, and I do not wonder that the country is anxious, along with the Prime Minister and his colleagues, at the terrible state we are in. There is no real confidence that the Government have yet grappled with the situation. That is what is bothering people outside. If we knew to-day, or a couple of months ago, that the Army Estimates were going to be cut down from £287,000,000 to £100,000,000, or the Navy similarly reduced, or the Air Force cut down to one half, then the country would begin to believe in the Government. It is because the Government is only going to begin to budget in the autumn for those reductions that there is a sense of unreality and anxiety and distrust rampant in the country and so much cause for anxiety. Let me, coming down from millions, take a very small point. We had an answer to-day, or a few days ago, that motor cars were to be reduced to a number absolutely necessary for Government Departments. There you are; those are the little things which show what the main spring is. After all, was there any reason for the Air Force rushing about London and the area with about ninety motor cars, which are now reduced to six? Why was that not done six months ago? Those are the small things which, to my mind, show what the real position is. We welcome what has been said to-day about the removal of restrictions and licences after the 1st September, and that this system of the Board of Trade going about with pockets stuffed with licences which some business man could get and other business men could not get, is to come to an end. But I should like whoever is going to reply to tell us is anything going to take its place. May I ask if the Prime Minister will tell us if the proposal which he makes to-day for dealing with dumping and the protection of key industries are those matters which will require legislation, and from 1st
September to the meeting of Parliament, will the whole thing be free and open. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. The general licence system is to go. A list of key industries will be published. [HON. MEMBERS: "When," and an HON. MEMBER: "Another Box."] At a very early date. Those things which are the products of key industries are the subject of licences on import. Those licences on the limited group of industries will be continued. In time there will be legislation to modify those in the way indicated by the Prime Minister earlier to-day. In addition over and above that, as the Prime Minister said, power is being retained with those imports which are crossing the line of collapsed exchanges, or exchanges which, under the conditions, are extremely favourable to us in a money sense, and which make them extremely favourable to the other country in the import sense. Those are the exceptions which will remain—one natural operative exception at once of a group of key industries, and the other of a reserved exception, of an emergency exception and it will be revised if necessary.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his explanation. All I can say is that the business community will be very much muddled to-morrow morning when they read it. I pass on from that. I just want to say that naturally that legislation, when it is introduced in the autumn, will receive very careful examination, and I can promise the Prime Minister a very considerable amount of active opposition, because it seems to me that it will in fact, whatever fancy terms you may apply to it, undoubtedly be a first instalment of the old enemy of Protection, which he fought so long and so well. He dealt with one or two other points on the social programme, and we wish the Government well in their efforts to provide adequate housing. They know, as we know, how deeply that cuts into the national life at the present moment, but he expressed a certain amount of satisfaction with the Land Acquisition Bill.
I am quite sure he does not know what happened here the other night with regard to the Land Acquisition Bill. For a long time we fought in Committee, and down here on Report for two things—first of all, that the body of valuers should be the
Commissioners of Inland Revenue—that is, his own land valuers, set up under his own Act, which we shall always be proud we fought for with him; and the other point was this, that in ascertaining the compensation to be paid for land, these valuers should "have regard to"—those were the words—the assessment which the claimant has either acquiesced in or has had laid upon him during the last three years. That is what was ultimately wrung from them, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) went all the way and said, "If you want land for public purposes, take it at the public value which the claimant or the public authority has set on it." That is the view he took, and he carried a very large number of the Members of this House, quite irrespective of party, with him. But ultimately we wrung that concession which I have mentioned from the Government. The matter went up to the House of Lords and came down here, and what had they done, and what did the Government accept themselves? Instead of "have regard to," they agreed to accept the words "shall consider," and that any question of rating is swept out altogether. It is only capital assessment you must look at or look at if you like. Was there ever a greater travesty? I tell the Prime Minister straight to his face that it is a travesty, and the thing is very largely waste paper. I am sure he did not know what happened the other night, but there it is.
I would like to say a word or two on the very vexed question of coal and the mining industry, and here I am in a very great difficulty, but it would be cowardly if I ran away from an awkward question without saying a word or two about it. I am sorry that I am not able to put myself in line with Members on the Labour Benches who spoke to-day. There are a large number of miners in my Constituency, but still, you have got to say what you think and believe, otherwise, what is the good of being a member of a deliberative assembly? I quite agree that the time has come when the State must take the mineral rights. But to urge upon the Government at the present moment to take over the whole of the mineral undertakings, and to be the owners and workers of them, is to take not a step, but a leap in the dark which I do not think any responsible Government is justified in taking at the present moment. You have
not got the personnel to work it; they must be highly trained. You have not the money to finance it. One step at a time, and in these matters it is well for the nation to make good each step at a time. Let us be honest about it. That is my view, and I stand up and say it wherever I am.
I do not believe a bit in this cry of nationalising everything. If you want to double and treble your difficulties, and make a crushing burden from which you will never recover, I say hand everything over to the State. What is the State? It is you and I—to get down to it. It is an easy, quack cry, which catches all sorts of people—"Nationalise everything." I believe that is the road to national ruin, and I will say what I think about it. It is a shifting of individual responsibilities. When the case is clearly and unmistakably made—yes, by all means. But it is not the British way, it is not the way with which we have achieved the position we have, to take these wild leaps in the dark into unexplored problems. I speak with a certain amount—I will not say of heat, but of conviction on the matter, and I say that I am quite prepared to back the Government in the steps which they propose to take with regard to this. They are steps which I think are justified at the present moment, but they are steps which require to be made good one by one, and I am sure that the duty of us all is to see that we shall place first the public good. Let us have it clearly understood that the great end and aim of government should be the steady, persistent pursuit of the public good, and we must never give way, or give the reins of Government into the hands of any interest, be it employers or employed, and so long as I am a Member of this House I shall always oppose any interference on the part of the employers or employed to hold the whole nation to ransom to secure their own ends, however justifiable, and however just they may seem to them to be. I am certain the only way to deal with this thing is, at any rate, to have a clear policy. Whether it goes all the way, or whether it does not go all the way, have a clear policy and stick to it, if you think it right, at all costs, and you will have the great mass of considered opinion in all classes of society behind you. I hope that the Government through the trying times that lie before them—and us—for there is responsibility on both sides
of the House—the term His Majesty's Opposition implies a duty which we all have—and I join the Prime Minister in the hope that while we are critics our criticism shall be given without the fear or favour of anybody—however powerful they may be—and that we recognise that in the end we are all citizens of the same community, and proud citizens of the same nation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think I should have intervened in this Debate were it not for the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party to the supposed pledge given by me that the Government would adopt the Report of the Coal Commission if it were in favour of nationalisation. I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for raising this point where it can be met. I have seen a statement of the same kind in the Press, but it was so worded that I did not in the least know whether it was supposed to refer to something said in my speech or something said at the meeting of the Miners' Executive. I am glad to find now that it was supposed to be contained in my speech of 20th March announcing the first Report of the Sankey Commission. The misunderstanding—I think it may be called—is based on two possible things. My right hon. Friend said that in that speech I said that the Government would act upon the Interim Reports, and that I said also that we accepted the Report—we were then dealing with—in the spirit and in the letter. As regards the Interim Reports, may I read a short extract from what I did say:
This is not the full Report of Mr. Justice Sankey … It is a very ambitious Report. I think it is a very statesmanlike Report. It proposes, if the Commission is allowed to continue, to deal one by one with all the problems of economy and improvement in connection with the coal industry.
Then follows a number of these imports—housing, baths at the pithead, continuity of transport, etc., and then I continued:
If this Commission is allowed to continue, what is proposed is that it should from time to time issue Interim Reports—
Note what follows—
dealing with all these questions, and that these should be not merely Reports, but that the proposals should at once be put into action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1919, cols. 2345–46, Vol. 113.]
That is obvious. There can be no misunderstanding of the proposals of these Reports—they refer to improvements in mining conditions.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he gave a pledge to the Miners' National Executive that if the Report of the Sankey Commission was given in favour of nationalisation, it would be carried into effect?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly No word of that kind was ever said. My hon. Friend, I think, was present, and he knows that a verbatim note was taken of what was said. I never in the world suggested such a thing. It is plain, therefore, that the Interim Reports refer only to those smaller points upon which the Sankey Commission promised to give Interim Reports. In addition to that, dealing with the same question, I said:
In regard to the whole Report we have had it discussed at the Cabinet this afternoon, and I say now, on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared to adopt the Report in the spirit as well as in the letter.
In the very same speech in which I am supposed to have given some kind of pledge to do something which a Scotsman never does—that is, buy a pig in a poke—I said:
I am sure there is no one in the House, and I feel certain the miners' leaders themselves will recognise it, who could maintain that such a subject as this, which does not affect a particular trade alone, but which affects the whole life of the nation, is a subject which can ever be decided by any section, however important it may be, of the nation, but must be decided by the Parliament which represents the community.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity of saying these few words, and I hope it is the end of that particular statement.

Mr. ADAMSON: All that I put to-night was that the Leader of the House had reported to the House as to what was contained in the Interim Report of the Commission going over wages, hours, and the future sittings of the Commission, and one of the points they had to consider at a future sitting included nationalisation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not in my speech.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am giving exactly what I put to the House, and if I am wrong I apologise. Then the right hon. Gentleman finished up by saying that the Government would give effect to this in the spirit and in the letter, and it was the natural conclusion of the mining community to come to that the Government were pledging themselves to nationalisation as well.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my right hon. Friend came to that conclusion by a misunderstanding, and if he will take the trouble to read my speech he will see that it is a misunderstanding that cannot last a moment. There were one or two other interventions to which I feel I must make some reference. The first is that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who dealt with the Government, as usual, faithfully, but a little more gently, and he came to the conclusion once more that our great crime is that we are not treating the House with respect, and that we are lowering it in the eyes of the public. He gave two or three illustrations. One was that the Prime Minister was treating the House with disrespect because ho makes this important statement on the Adjournment, and admittedly does so with the idea that the House of Commons and the country should have an opportunity of considering his proposals before we come to deal with them after the Recess. I cannot imagine what disrespect to the House there is in that. The right hon. Gentleman must know that these are very difficult subjects, and it was stated two or three weeks ago that the Prime Minister hoped to be able to make a statement about them before the Recess, and it was stated later that the statement would be made on the Adjournment. We have been able to carry out that promise, and, strange to say, my Noble Friend who was so shocked at the constituencies having anything to say in these matters took up the greater part of his speech telling us what his own constituency said on the subject. If that is right for his constituents, it cannot be wrong for the constituents of the rest of us. Then my Noble Friend came back to the subject which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean), namely, the presence or absence of the Prime Minister at our Debates. I was glad that the Prime Minister was here, and that he at once took part in that discussion himself. I did not like to interrupt for fear it might be thought that I was grudging him coming back to the old duties of the Prime Minister in that respect. I can assure the House that he will get no opposition from me if he desires to undertake the task. Perhaps I may be permitted to say, because I am sure that the House will believe that I have no personal interest in the matter, that I cannot
imagine that there is anyone who sees as I do what the daily life of the Prime Minister is, and who knows the necessity for that daily life, a life consisting of interviewing the heads of the Departments one after the other throughout the whole day, who can believe that so long as the pressure of work continues as it Is at present it is possible for the same man to endeavour to control the Departments and to adequately attempt to lead the House of Commons. I do not think that at present it is possible. My hon. Friend will forgive me for referring to this. He gave us another instance of our disrespect for the House of Commons that I kept the House of Commons sitting up all night last week. There are many ways in which you may be disrespectful, but I should not have thought that one of them was to do exactly what people want. That was what happened about the all-night sitting. I did what I think has never been done in the history of the House of Commons before on these occasions. I left it to the free vote of the House of Commons, without the Whips, to say whether or not they would continue to sit; and by an overwhelming majority they decided to do so. It required some ingenuity to suggest that is treating the House of Commons with a want of respect. My hon. Friend—I hope he will not think that I am ill-natured, because I am not—appeals very often to principle but I have noticed, and; I wonder if other Members of the House have noticed, that makes him no more scrupulous than the rest of us in utilising any of the ordinary weapons of party opposition in order to secure the object and the end that we have set before us. He gave that striking example of treating the House of Commons with a want of respect on Wednesday and on Friday he reverted to one of our old Parliamentary customs which had fallen into disrepute during the War—one which, I may say, though I used to adopt it, I have always believed is one in itself almost contemptible, and is certainly one which brings the House of Commons into most discredit because it shows that we are only playing the game—and that is the old Parliamentary method of pure obstruction with no other object in view.

Lord R. CECIL: My right hon. Friend has no right whatever to say that I was approached by those very much interested in the Sex Disqualification Bill. They protested in the strongest way against the
Government's action. I consulted the authorities of the House as to how I could call attention to what the Government were doing. They told me that I had no means at all, and then it occurred to me that I might through this method call the attention of the House to it. It is quite true the Government asked to postpone consideration of the matter and the question came up legitimately whether it should be postponed or not. That was all and I took no other part in. the matter.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not arguing that. I only say the result was that we spent half an hour talking about doing nothing when we might have been doing something.

Lord H. CECIL: The Government should manage its business better then.

Mr. BONAR LAW: At any rate it was not we who wasted the time. I now come to the question raised by my Noble Friend as to our withdrawal from the Caucasus. I cannot take exception to anything he said on that subject. There is no one in this House who would not desire to prevent a repetition of the atrocities such as have happened in Armenia. But, although we have got great responsibilities all over the world, our first responsibility is to our own people. However anxious we may be to prevent misfortunes happening elsewhere, it is obvious—and my Noble Friend recognised it—that there is a limit, and a very definite limit, to what this country can do. The whole tone of this House, the whole feeling of the country, the whole desire of the Government, has been only to bring our Army to smaller dimensions—to the smallest possible dimensions—as quickly as possible. The whole object of the country is at the earliest possible moment to reduce an expenditure which, if continued, will certainly land in ruin. To cut that expenditure down it is obvious we must reduce the expenditure on armed forces. Of course, we should like to make sure that the threatened misfortunes will not happen to the Armenians, but nobody knows better than my Noble Friend that throughout the Peace negotiations we were receiving telegrams constantly stating that British soldiers were wanted all over the disturbed areas to prevent massacres and things of that kind. But there is a limit to what we can do. We decided so long ago as March that we must withdraw our troops from this area as part of the
general withdrawal of our men from the front. That was publicly announced in this House by the Secretary for War, and it was announced to our Allies, and I put it to this House, Are we justified, seeing that we are no more responsible than any other nation in the world, in continuing an indefinite occupation of these areas?

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It was announced that British troops were to be withdrawn and that Italian troops would take their place.

Mr. BONAR LAW: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: And it was only this week we learned that while our troops were to be withdrawn no Italian troops were to be sent.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is, of course, a question of memory, but my impression is distinctly that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War in his speech made it quite plain that we were not going to keep our troops there and that Italian troops were not being sent. Just think of it from another point of view! Where would this end? The very same kind of appeal is being made to us now by Archangel, where we are said to have obligations of an equal character. We have got to make up our minds. Whether we like it or not, we cannot be responsible for securing good order in countries like this, with which we have no connection at all. That does not mean that we would not gladly do anything in our power to avoid these misfortunes. I hope myself, and I think there is some reason for hoping that the danger is greatly exaggerated. After all, it is one thing for these Turkish pashas to encourage cruelties of this kind in the midst of a war, when they thought their side was going to win, and it is another thing to do it now, when they know their side has lost and they know that they have a world which, if they go to certain extremes, will certainly punish them. Therefore, there is some reason for thinking that the dangers are exaggerated. In any case, British troops in the Caucasus are all men who have the right to be demobilised. They would have every reason to think that they were being treated abominably if they were kept there. The process of withdrawal has begun. It will be slow through the need for shipping. It will continue, I think, until well on in October. I can assure my Noble Friend that if any sign of help were coming from America, as he suggests, we would
only too gladly welcome it. Indeed, I think I might say more, with the consent of my right hon. Friend. It is, if I may be permitted to say so, an American problem rather than a British. They are in a better position to deal with it. They have interests as great as ours—I think, greater. I can assure the House that if the President of the United States were officially to say to the British Government, "We wish you to hold the fort for a little until we can make arrangements," we would certainly do our best to meet him. But I can hold out no hope of keeping troops longer in that part of the country, although I am glad to say that an Allied Commissioner has already been sent to Armenia and that we have Commissioners of our own both in Baku and Batoum. I have reason to hope—I will not put it higher than that—that these evils which are so much dreaded will not come to pass.
We have had the biggest subjects with which any nation can deal brought up for consideration to-day. As regards the coal industry, I can add nothing to what has been said by the Prime Minister, except to point out this, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, that even if for other considerations it were possible to contemplate a policy of nationalisation, in the present state of our finances it would be, in my opinion, absolute madness even to think of carrying it out.
As regards the trade policy, I must congratulate my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) on saying so little about it. That enables me to imitate him. He did not say enough to give one an insight into what is in his mind, and I dare say in the minds of many others who hold his views, both in the House and in the country. He is going to treat it in the old way, as a fight between Free Trade and Protection, and this is the beginning of Protection. I am afraid I see an hon. Friend opposite who, if he had got the chance, would have told me that this was only Free Trade with a very thin disguise. I have no doubt of that. But does the right hon. Gentleman really think that we can pass through a convulsion like that of the last five years and that we can have the conditions which prevail to-day and yet deal with these questions on the old lines? Look at it from the Free Trade point of view, apart from anything else. I say nothing about experience having shown that in a world
where war is possible it is not safe to depend on other nations, which may be your enemies, for some of the essentials for carrying on war. But when you realise that at this moment the exchange in Germany is the equivalent of 3d. for 1s.—I believe prices have risen very much more than this exchange suggests, but that is what the exchange means, that what costs 3d. to make in Germany could be sold in England for 1s. as the result of the War—without the War that would be impossible—is there any free trader who is prepared to say that whatever the effect of the exchange may be he would allow goods sold under these conditions to come absolutely without restriction into our markets?

Captain W. BENN: Under what Statute do you keep them out?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am dealing with arguments and not with methods. I do not think really anyone can take that view. Perhaps I may close with a reference to a speech which I heard with pleasure by Mr. Asquith at this box. It was in the middle of the War. He knew what it meant, and his words seem to me to exactly foreshadow the speech made by my right hon. Friend to-day in carrying out what the then Prime Minister explained. Let me read the words:
I will not enlarge upon the special measures which the Government may adopt or ought to adopt to safeguard certain industries which are vital not only to our success in the War but to our normal economic life. The Board of Trade are actively engaged in devising schemes to render us independent of enemy supplies as regards dyes, spelter and other important commodities. It is perhaps right that I should disclose the fact that three most important resolutions—I will only name one of them, namely, protection against dumping or unfair competition—were specially proposed by the British representative.
He closed with these words:
No one who has any imagination can possibly be blind to the fact that this War, with all the enormous upheaval of political, social and industrial conditions, must and ought, if we are rational and practical people, suggest to us new problems. I should regard it as a deliberate blindness to the teachings of experience if you say we had forgotten nothing and had learnt nothing from a war like this.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member forgets that when the Government existed I was always told I was in Mr. Asquith's pocket. It really means one thing only, that we have learnt lessons from the War, that we are living in a new world and we
have got to face all these problems in the conditions of to-day and not of 1914.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I want to speak of the Prime Minister's speech from the point of view of trade and commerce. It will produce a sense of great disappointment amongst manufacturers. They had hopes that a great definite policy would be proposed by the Prime Minister, but when his speech is read to-morrow their feeling will be one of very great disappointment. I have introduced a great number of deputations on trade policy to the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, and we have urged upon them, over and over again, the importance of having a clear, definite, understandable policy. Some of these deputations were very big and imposing, representing the heads of the great industrial concerns in the country. We urged this policy before the conclusion of Peace, and on more than one occasion since the Armistice. The last occasion was only a few weeks ago, when I introduced a representative deputation from a great number of industries. The replies we received were sympathetic, but to-day we are limited to key industries. Nobody knows exactly what is intended by a key industry. What we have felt is that a key industry was an industrial essential to the commercial prosperity of the country which required protection from unfair foreign competition, and in fact from all foreign competition. We have had promises made that the policy of the future would be different from the policy of the past. I will quote a few words uttered by the Prime Minister to a deputation which I introduced this time last year. He said, "During the War we have undoubtedly discovered that there were industries in this country which were essential not merely from the commercial point of view, but from that of national defence and security. Under no condition whatever should we let these industries down in future." Those were industries of importance from the commercial point of view, and also from the point of view of national defence. We gathered from that pronouncement that some more comprehensive policy would be introduced, and that the basis of that policy would be a protective tariff. We are told to-day that a tariff is unnecessary at the moment, and that, as regards key industries, imports are to be subject to licence. That is a very unsatisfactory and undesirable policy. We have had
experience of these licences, and I am certain that, though justifiable as a temporary expedient, it was not a kind of policy which the country could adopt for any lengthy period. I was told the other day of a great number of firms who desired to import tooth brushes from Japan. These gentlemen attended at the Board of Trade, and not a single one of them had an English name. They were interrogated, and one after the other said that there was an urgent necessity for tooth brushes, that there was only one toothbrush for every forty people in the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!")—and when it came to the last gentleman who was sitting quietly there he said, "There are plenty of toothbrushes in the country." He was asked how did he account for that, and he said, "I have got the whole lot." That was the case of an importer who had made a corner in toothbrushes, and he was struggling so as to be able to secure the English market for himself. That sort of thing is bound to occur under any system of licences. A very much fairer and more straightforward method of proceeding to protect British industry would be to impose a tariff on articles of foreign manufacture.
I welcome what the Prime Minister said with regard to dumping. He rather extended the definition which he gave to the term dumping. As far as it goes that is satisfactory, but he has omitted absolutely to make any reference to goods which are the produce of Asiatic labour and which hit the English producer just as much as the pre-war dumped goods which came from America, and are going to hit seriously a great number of our industries. I understand that only a limited importation of goods from countries where the exchange has collapsed is to be allowed. That cannot go on much longer. One knows that exchanges fluctuate, but even if there is a limited importation of such goods, who is going to net the profit? If goods which are sent from Germany and are worth 3d. are sold in England for 1s., who is going to net that 9d.? It will open the door to all sorts of scandals and profiteering. I should have thought it would be much fairer to equalise the difference in exchange by a tariff on goods of that character. Then the benefit, instead of going to the profiteer, would go to the country. These cheap goods, many of which are necessary, would not be ex-
cluded, but the benefit would go to the Exchequer. I am afraid that this policy is the result of a compromise. I do not like it at all. Anything in the nature of Protection will receive violent opposition from hon. Gentlemen on these benches, and I am afraid also that the half-and-half policy which has been suggested to-day will receive very lukewarm support from all the great industries which are concerned in the matter.
The result will be, unless I am mistaken, that, unpopular though the Coalition is to-day, it will be more unpopular in future, and that the Government will be between two stools with every probability of a heavy fall. I am sorry that we have not had a better opportunity of considering these proposals, and that a great policy of this kind has been rushed on the House on the Last day. We have not had an opportunity of examining it, of understanding it, and of consulting those who are deeply interested in it. I am told that the President of the Board of Trade will issue a list of what he considers to be key industries, and that the list will probably be acted on at once. We shall, therefore, have no opportunity of considering that list. That, to my mind, is most unfair. The whole prosperity of an important organisation of employers and manufacturers, who take a very keen interest in this matter, is bound up with the question of our trade policy, and I think it must be obvious to the Members of the Government, when they recall the number of deputations they have received, that it is not a matter which will be ended by this Debate to-day. The question is one which will foe pressed and urged repeatedly. I can only express my sense of deep disappointment and my dislike of the very, obvious compromise which has been arrived at. I have in my mind a, speech which the Leader of the House delivered at a meeting two years ago, in which he stated that it was an undoubted fact that the Prime Minister had a certain amount of support from men who would desert if he made a declaration in favour of a tariff, and the right hon. Gentleman went on further to say that after the War he himself would not be a member of a Government which did not make a change in our fiscal system.
We realised during the War that it was necessary to support the Prime Minister by every means in our power,
and, though we considered that the fiscal question was one of great importance, and would affect employment after the War, as it has, yet we have continued to press the question. Now that the War is over we have a strong feeling that the fiscal question is one which has to be settled definitely either one way or the other. If we are to have the old policy of Free Trade the sooner we know it the better, and the sooner the question is settled the better. If, on the other hand, we are to have a Protective policy as our future trade policy, then that question should be settled as soon as possible, and there is not the slightest use postponing the matter from month to month. I would not have spoken so long if it had not been for interruptions, and I content myself with making the protest which I have made.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I shall not detain the House long unless there are interruptions. I would not have risen at all at this hour but for the statement of the Leader of the House in which he seeks to convey the impression that we have received no sort of undertaking from the Government, that if we got a Report in favour of nationalisation that Report would be carried into effect I can only say if that is the view hold honestly by the Government it is the exact opposite of the view held by the miners. As we have understood the language of the members of the Government we have had pretty definite terms conveyed to us not merely by the Leader of the House but also by the Home Secretary, who spoke in the Debate when the Bill setting up the Commission was before the House. The Labour Members were urging the Government to concede the principle of nationalisation and merely let the Commission go into the details of it to set up a scheme carrying it into effect. The Home Secretary on that occasion said:
We are asked to-night to accept the principle of nationalisation. What is the principle of nationalisation? I confess I do not understand the term. The nationalisation of mines is not a religion. It is a pure business proposition, and if it turns out on investigation that it is for the good of the country as a whole that the mines should be nationalised, that the people of the country would be better off if the mines were worked under a national system, rather than under private ownership, then it is a good business proposition and we should accept it. I should not ascribe that as accepting the principle, and if my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite when they say, 'Will you accept the principle of nationalisation?' really men, 'If, on inquiry, it is found to be the
best thing for the country, will you accept it?' then I unhesitatingly say of course I accept the principle of nationalisation. But, as I say, it is a business proposition, and a business proposition of great complexity.
He goes on to suggest that the proper thing to do is to relegate that question, the question of the principle of nationalisation, to the Commission. He said further:
The Government desire to go into the matter to see if it is a good business proposition. If it is that, I accept it. If it is proved to be a national detriment rather than a. national advantage, then the Government will oppose it. There their position stands. I should have thought myself that for anyone who desired merely to do that which was best for the country, the proposal of the Government was the best, namely, that the whole question should be thrashed out with expert evidence, expert opinion, expert knowledge before a competent and highly efficient tribunal. So far for nationalisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1919, col. 1541, Vol. 112.]
So far for nationalisation. Now that is the undertaking given to us by the Home Secretary when replying to the Debate when the Bill was before the House for setting-up the Commission. I say if that does not constitute an undertaking on the part of the Government that if that Commission reported in favour of nationalisation the Government would adopt the Report, then there is only one interpretation to be put upon the statement, and that is that the Home Secretary deliberately endeavoured to mislead the representatives of the miners who were taking part in the Debate in this House. I do not think that was his desire or his intention. I am satisfied that when he made that statement he was speaking for the Government, and that that was the intention of the Government at that time, but that since then, under pressure, the Government has seen fit to change their policy, and now they come forward and declare that they have never made any such promise. The Leader of the House will probably say also that he did not give us any pledge. When we were before him as a National Executive on 25th March at Downing Street, we were dealing there with the Interim Report, which had already given us a seven-hour day and a 2s. advance in wages. We were asking for certain modifications in the Report, and he was resisting every demand on our part to give any modifications, and in referring to the advantages we had already received and the advantages
which were still to accrue to us if the Commission went on, he made this statement:
I would like you, gentlemen, to consider, what do you gain by this Report? I do not know what you feel, but when this Commission was set up, I would have thought it impossible that you could have got without a strike, and at once, such a big step towards meeting your demands as you have secured. First of all on the question of nationalisation. I know you attach—I believe, at least, you attach—as much importance to that almost, if not quite, as to improving your immediate conditions. Well, Mr. Justice Sankey has undertaken to report on that within two months—a very short time, I think—and it will be a Report by people who have shown that they are not unsympathetic to the miners' demands. The next question is that of hours—
and he deals with that, and then he comes to wages and says we have two-thirds of what we were after and he goes on to say that there are many other things which will be inquired into if the Commission goes on, and he says:
In addition to that, I think it is hardly less important to look at the opportunity which is given of improving the whole condition of your industry. Such a proposal as Mr. Justice Sankey has made is certainly something new in Commissions. It really suggests what is in fact Executive action If this Commission is allowed to continue, Interim Reports will be issued dealing with subject after subject in which you are vitally interested, and not merely will those Interim Reports be issued, which in ordinary circumstances might be put into the waste-paper basket, but it is part of the Government undertaking to deal with those Reports in the spirit as well as in the letter.
In that speech we get the Leader of the House commencing by a reference to nationalisation, then he goes on to hours and wages and to improved social conditions, and he says that on all those matters we are to have Interim Reports, which are not to be put, in the usual way, into the waste-paper basket, but—

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. The words he read prove that that is not so. All I said about nationalisation was that you would have the advantage of a Report of a not unsympathetic Committee.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I was there listening to the statement, and every member of the executive, having heard that statement, came away convinced that you were giving an undertaking that if, in the Interim Report issued, nationalisation was reported in favour of, then the Government were pledged to carry it into effect. I do not know whether the Home Secretary was talking for the Government or not. In any case, both the statement of the Home Secretary and that of the Leader
of the House were regarded as constituting a pledge on the part of the Government that if Reports were made in favour of it it would be carried into effect. I desire to say only two or three words in relation to the policy announced by the Government in place of nationalisation. I do not think it would be possible for them to adopt any policy which would be regarded by the miners of this country as more reactionary than the policy that has been announced here this evening. As I understand it, the mining industry is to be trustified; great mining trusts are to be created in this country under the authority and sanction of the Government. I very much regret that the Prime Minister has identified himself with a policy of that description. Every miner in this country to-morrow will regard the Prime Minister as having gone wholeheartedly over to the right. I am sure he will have antagonised Labour thoroughly, but that is a small matter compared with the consequences which will result from the adoption of this policy. The Prime Minister has said that his object, and the object of the Government in deciding upon this policy is to increase output. There is no doubt—we are all agreed—that that is a vital issue. The output from the mines in this country can be increased. There is no question at all about that, but it can only be increased when there is a hearty co-operation between the miners' representatives in this country and the Government, and I say that there is not a miners' representative from John o' Groats to Land's End who will co-operate with the Government in making this thing a success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It does not matter whether it is a shame or not, the result will be the same. There is no man in this House or out of it who has more honestly and sincerely endeavoured to exert an influence in the direction of increasing output than myself; I have done my level best, but I shall certainly not render any assistance in making a scheme of the kind announced by the Prime Minister to-night anything in the nature of a success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am not the least bit concerned whether you cry "Shame" or not.

Captain LOSEBY: It is a shame!

Mr. HARTSHORN: I think the less said by you the better. When the miners of the country know to-morrow that they have been duped, and that is really what
the statement amounts to—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—they will know they have been deceived. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, we did not ask for a Commission. We accepted it. We gave evidence before it. Why was the Commission set up? Was it a huge game of bluff? Was it never intended that if the Reports favoured nationalisation we were to get it? Why was the question sent at all to the Commission? That is the kind of question the miners of the country will, ask, and they will say, "We have been deceived, betrayed, duped." The Prime Minister told us this evening that there were over 1,141,000 men in the mines, and that we should get about 200,000,000 tons of coal per year. Since the 6s. was put on output had gone down, and is continually going down. I say after the declaration of this policy it will go down further to ruin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!" and "Order, order!"] It does not in the least matter whether you cry "Shame" or not. If it is to be a fact it is as well that you should know it—you people who have been bringing pressure to bear upon the Government. The shame will be with you when the position comes home to the miners of the country, and they will not in the least mind whether you say "Shame!" or not. If we are not to have a definite difference in the mining industry than in the past, then the miners will not produce on the same terms as they have produced hitherto. Why, even the Duckham Report, which proposed to set up these trusts, suggested some sort of limitation of profit. The Prime Minister did not even think it necessary to tell us whether or not he is going to limit profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Profiteering!"] But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not go more fully into the matter than to say this: that since the Armistice—and only since then—the output has been going down.
During the War the Miners' Executive co-operated with the Government—the Prime Minister knows that as well as anybody. We were asked to work harder—on Sundays, holidays and extra days, per week—to work six days per week instead of five, as had been the practice for years—to maintain the output, and so to meet the need of the nation. All that will not be counted—the propaganda to effect it will be forgotten. The Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, Sir John Simon, Mr. McKenna, and the Coal Controller—all attended, or addressed, or both, big national con-
ferences of miners and mine-owners to help on the vigorous propaganda. What has happened since? Since the Armistice not a word has been said in any direction as to the attitude we maintained during the War. Why? Now a policy has been thrust upon the country without a single reference to the owners or the workmen employed in the industry. If the owners carry out the threat they made before the Commission they simply will not work the mines under the system proposed by the Government. They said rather than have that sort of thing they would go in for nationalisation.

Sir EDGAR JONES: They did not!

Mr. HARTSHORN: Let us see—

Sir E. JONES: What they said was that they would not have divided management.

Mr. HARTSHORN: The Interim Report, then, of the Sankey Commission has not been carried into effect, because we have, at any rate, given the assurance—and even this is not denied by the Leader of the House—that we were to have an effective voice in the management and control of the industry. If that is not carried out we are not getting what we were promised. If we were, the owners say they would not co-operate to carry it into effect. I very much regret the decision of the Government. It is, however, their responsibility, and, far from getting an increased output, I venture to say that the result will be a further decline to a very considerable extent.

Mr. BONAR LAW rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve o'clock and at its rising do adjourn until Wednesday, 22nd October, and that To-morrow Mr. SPEAKER, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put.

Orders of the Day — WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.

Lords Amendments further considered.

TITLE.

Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Lords Amendment: After the word "the" ["the authority of"] insert the words "constitution and."

Adjourned Debate resumed on Question proposed [15th August], "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we know what is this Amendment?

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Further Provisions as to Welsh Ecclesiastical Property.)

(3) There shall be included in the property which the Welsh Commissioners are required by Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to transfer to the representative body any tithe rent-charge derived from sources other than endowments of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, and not being Welsh ecclesiastical property, which has been appropriated since the year sixteen hundred and sixty-two to benefices in Wales and Monmouth shire.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3), after the word "body," insert "(a)."

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a question of the burial grounds, which has been discussed in this House quite fully. There was an attempt to come to an arrangement, but the attempt failed, and therefore it is quite apart from the settlement which this Bill includes. I, accordingly, ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I hope that the Government will reconsider this question, which affects only a very limited number of churchyards in Wales. These churchyards which fall under this Amendment are left to the incumbent for his life, and, after that, pass to the local authorities. Everyone is sensible that it is more desirable to remove all bitterness in regard to the burial of the dead. I know that bitterness is felt on both sides, and, having regard to the object which the Government have so often said that they have at heart, the object of allaying religious bitterness in Wales, it is most desirable to come to an arrangement which will prevent any bitterness arising in respect of the matter.
If you take a churchyard away from the church and hand it over to the local authority, it will inflict a serious sentimental injury upon the feelings of Churchmen. It is not in the least indispensable to the policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment, because it was not done in Ireland. It is not in the public interest, or in the interest of the religious life of Wales, because it will produce a great deal of bitterness and ill-feeling. As far as I know, the Government are not themselves indisposed to make the concession, but they feel bound by this strange system of negotiation which went on behind the back of the House. I really do not think that is a satisfactory reply on a matter of this kind. A large body of people who cannot possibly have been represented on one side or the other are concerned in this matter, and there is a great deal of deep sentiment in connection with these churchyards. It is not desirable that these churchyards should go on being, as, unhappily, they have been in the past, a source of contention. The proposal of the Amendment is, not that they should remain any longer in the hands of the incumbents, who in some few cases may have acted indiscreetly, but that they should pass to the representative Church party, which, of course, is a responsible party which will act in a proper manner. I believe, if the Government could see their way to accept the Amendment, that they would really do a great deal to promote the peaceful and charitable settlement—which they so often assure us they desire. Therefore, I do suggest that they should reconsider their Motion to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

12.0 M.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I am very much surprised at the line taken by the Home Secretary in asking the House to disagree with this Amendment. He did not defend this agreement on the merits of the question, and he did not explain to which churchyard the Amendment referred. He merely said that, because it was not part of a bargain which was made without the knowledge of the House and behind the back of the House, therefore the House must have nothing to do with it. The whole of this Bill has been the result of some negotiations without the knowledge of the vast mass of the Welsh people, either Church or Chapel, and it has been rushed through in a hurry. No argument is put
forward from the Government Bench, and no argument is necessary. Under these circumstances, those of us who in the past took the line that these churchyards that have surrounded the churches since before 1662, the oldest churchyards in Wales, are the rightful property of the Church are bound to vote against the Government proposal in honour to all that we said before the War. We cannot accept an arrangement and a bargain made in this kind of way behind our backs. It is a perfect scandal the way that these negotiations have taken place, and in common honour I feel myself bound to vote in favour of agreeing with the Lords Amendment, because I honestly believe that these old churchyards are the most precious heritage of Churchmen in Wales, and because I am not yet convinced, although the Government may show the authority of the Bishop of St. Asaph. He does not care for these churchyards and he is quite willing to give them up as part of a bargain. Therefore, whatever he says, I am bound to stand by what I said before the War and demand the return of the churchyards to the Church.

Sir E. JONES: I think it is only right to say that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to the Bishop of St. Asaph are grossly unfair and uncalled for. The Bishop of St. Asaph, to my knowledge, has made a very strenuous and very strong attempt to get the best he could for his Church.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I am very glad to hear it.

Sir E. JONES: I could not let pass a frivolous remark of that kind against a gentleman who, in spite of all our differences, we Welshmen admire for his ability, and respect for his sincerity. The hon. and gallant Member does not know quite so much about this question as some of us who made an honest attempt in the beet possible spirit and utmost sincerity.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I did not know anything about that, and I certainly withdraw my accusation against the Bishop of St. Asaph. My hon. Friend has enlightened me for the first time.

Sir E. JONES: I am very glad. The hon. Member does not represent now a Welsh constituency, and he does not speak for Wales. The Bishop of St. Asaph and the chairman of the Parliamentary Com-
mittee have right through the negotiations spoken for the Welsh Church. Why cannot English Members who are not representatives of Welsh opinion leave Welshmen alone to settle our own questions, instead of keeping the House here night after night discussing these points? This question is really exceedingly difficult. I personally unhesitatingly say I should have liked immensely to see agreement. There is no money in this on one side or the other. The question is complicated; it involves points of great complexity. The endeavour to come to the agreement suggested by the representatives of the Church broke down on its merits entirely through the complications involved in working it out. These were complicated trust deeds, and difficulties of that kind. I am very sorry we could not come to an agreement, but the fact we have not done so does not justify the words which have been uttered here to-night by people who do not represent Wales and who have no right to flout either the Bishops or the Nonconformists of the Principality who have tried and are trying to settle their own differences.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not want to continue the Debate, indeed I am anxious to avoid putting the House to the trouble of a Division. But I think the Government might have offered some reasonable explanation of the reasons for their Motion. This is the first time this particular question has been discussed here.

The PRIME MINISTER: It could have been discussed but it was not.

Lord R. CECIL: I think I am right in saying it has not been discussed on this particular Bill, and in my opinion, if only out of civility the Government might have given some reasons for their decision. It would be some consolation to know that it has in fact been considered.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have been very loth to intervene in the discussion, but I can assure my Noble Friend and the others who have taken part in this Debate that we were exceedingly anxious to arrive at a settlement which would be satisfactory in spirit and in letter to both sides. The Noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Hugh Cecil) said the churchyards were not taken away from the Church of Ireland. But he must recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the two cases. In Ireland they
were substantially Protestant churchyards. The Roman Catholics in the main had their own burial grounds. That was the case in the vast majority of the parishes in Ireland. But in Wales the churchyards are really parish churchyards, and I should say that four-fifths of those buried in them were Nonconformists. At any rate, that was probably the case in the vast majority of the rural churchyards in Wales. Therefore the two cases are not comparable. I am exceedingly anxious not to enter into any discussion on this subject which would revive old controversies. Everyone knows how much the controversy has centred round the burial of Nonconformists in these churchyards, which they regard as parish churchyards. I was, therefore, extremely anxious to see a settlement that would be acceptable to both sections. I did my best. I took a good deal of trouble in the matter last week, and I should have been very pleased if something could have been done; but, for the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend (Sir E. Jones), they failed. I regret it very much. I do not blame anybody. I am perfectly certain that those who represent the Church will agree that those who represented Nonconformist opinion were exceedingly anxious to meet them, and that the failure was due to causes for which neither party was altogether responsible. It was due to the inherent difficulties of the case. I hope that my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. I should like to say a word about the other. This controversy has raged in Wales for fifty or sixty years. For certainly twenty or thirty years of my political life in Wales this seemed to be the main trouble in all platform controversies. We are trying to settle it. We tried to get a settlement in which Churchmen would feel that, at any rate, we had done our best. There are two different points of view—two absolutely irreconcilable points of view. Churchmen take the view that this is property which belongs to them. They honestly believe it. Nonconformists take the view that it is national property. They also honestly hold that view. You cannot reconcile them. The best thing that can be done in a case of that kind is to try to get the parties to make the best arrangement in the circumstances. What really matters is that Nonconformists and Churchmen should act together in the future. Here, I think, an arrangement has been come to.
I remember that an attempt was made during the War. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) and I took practically the same view then. I failed to convince my own fellow countrymen on that occasion. I wish it had been settled then. Now we have succeeded in getting an agreement. It is one that is acceptable to the Church, and no one would regret it more than Churchmen if it failed to be approved. It is an advantageous settlement to the Church. That does not mean that it is disadvantageous to anybody else. The mistake often made is to assume that because an arrangement is good for one party, it must necessarily be a bad one for others. This is an arrangement which Welsh Churchmen, who are capable of looking after themselves in ordinary matters, think a good one. In these circumstances I hope, seeing that an arrangement has been arrived at, that these old controversies will not be reopened. I say that in regard to this Amendment, and these observations also cover the next one. I cannot refer to it, but it does re-open a controversy. If the Bill were wrecked I do not think my hon. Friends would receive the grateful recognition of Welsh Churchmen. I do not say that this is a matter entirely for ourselves. It is certainly a matter for the House of Commons, especially where public money is involved. I should have thought, as far as the controversy in regard to the churchyards and the controversy with regard to the organisation of the Church itself are concerned, that Welsh Churchmen would have been the authority which would have been accepted on questions of this kind by the House of Commons. I would, therefore, earnestly appeal to the House, after the protest which my hon. Friends have made—a very emphatic protest; they take a different point of view—to allow us to settle this old controversy among ourselves.
It is the earnest desire of both parties to have a settlement of a very old feud which has poisoned public life in Wales for thirty or forty years. It has entered into everything. It has entered into education, it has entered into social co-operation. Now that it has been settled, I implore the Noble Lord not to prolong even for five minutes a controversy which has done no good. I hope my hon. Friends will not persist in their Amendments. We are all running risks. I know perfectly well my hon. Friends from Wales and my-
self who have supported the Bill are open to being told that we are Re-endowing and Re-establishing the Church. On the other hand, Churchmen will be subjected to the kind of accusation which has been hurled against them to-night. We are prepared to face that, because we know very big issues are involved, and we want the co-operation of all those who are charged with the spiritual welfare of the people in these very dark and trying times.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At end, add the words "and (b) all burial grounds."—Disagreed with.

CLAUSE 8.—(Saving for Divided Parishes.)

No parish situated in Wales or Monmouthshire and which is in an English diocese shall be deprived of the right of self-determination granted to border parishes by Section nine, Subsection (1), of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, by reason of its having been separated or divided oft from a larger parish, situated partly in England and partly in Wales and Monmouth shire, if such separation has taken place subsequently to the year eighteen hundred and fifty.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "No parish situated in Wales or Monmouth shire and which is in an English diocese shall be deprived of the right of self-determination granted to border parishes by Section nine, Sub-section (1)," and insert instead thereof the words
Where an ecclesiastical parish which before the year eighteen hundred and fifty was situate partly in Wales or Monmouth shire and partly in England has since that year been divided into two ecclesiastical parishes, one of which is situate wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire, and one wholly in England, and both those parishes are situated in an English diocese, then Subsections (1) and (3) of Section nine.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is merely a drafting Amendment to a Clause agreed to in this House dealing with parishes which are partly in England and partly in Wales. A portion which is entirely in Wales has lost the right of deciding for itself what its future should be, and we desire to restore to it that right.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the words
by reason of its having been separated or divided off from a larger parish situated partly
in England and partly in Wales and Monmouth shire, if such separation has taken place subsequently to the year eighteen hundred and fifty,
and insert instead thereof the words
(which relates to border parishes) shall apply to the ecclesiastical parish so situate wholly in Wales or Monmouth shire in like manner as if part thereof were situate in England.

After Clause 8, insert new Clause A:

CLAUSE A.—(Repeal of Sub-section (5) of Section three of 4 and 5, Geo. 5 c. 91.)

Sub-section (5) of Section three of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is enacted as follows:
It shall be lawful for the governing Church body acting on behalf of the Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales to request the Archbishop of Canterbury to be relieved from attendance in the Convocation of the Province and thereupon the Archbishop may relieve them from attendance, and it shall not be necessary for the Archbishop when summoning Convocation in obedience to the Royal writ to include to the citation the several Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Wales.

Mr. SHORTT: On a point of Order. I think now the Amendment of the Title of the Bill has been rejected this Clause would be out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is consequential, but it is not for the Chair to rule out of order an Amendment discussed in the other House. Either the Home Secretary or some other Member should make a Motion.

Lord H. CECIL: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am surprised that the Amendment is not accepted. I cannot help thinking it is due to a mere misunderstanding. This is described in the Press as being a reversal of the policy of Disestablishment. It is not so intended, and I do not think it is so. There is not the smallest desire to conceal our dissatisfaction with the Bill from the point of view of Disendowment. We have never desired to reopen the question of Disestablishment in any degree, and we regard it as being a settled question. This is only a matter of form, in order to carry out the decision of Convocation in a manner consistent with the recognition of the spiritual welfare of the Church. The position is this: Disestablishment and Establishment are legal matters, and in deciding the legal point you have at, the same time to readjust the spiritual relations.
The Government, when they passed the Act of 1914, always professed with sincerity that they did not desire in the slightest degree to interfere with the independent spiritual life of the four Welsh Church dioceses or of the Church of England, and accordingly they put into the Act the provision that the relations of the See of Canterbury were not to be affected. But in dealing with Convocation we appear to have overlooked the fact that Convocation has a double character. In very rare, exceptional instances it is a body which takes legal action, but its more important character is that of a purely spiritual synod. It is a very ancient body, not established or set up by law, older than Parliament, and always existing down to the Reformation, distinct altogether from the State and only brought under the authority of the State by the legislation of Henry VIII. Therefore, all that we are desirous of doing is in the severance from Convocation of the Welsh dioceses, which is inevitable as a consequence of Disestablishment; that the thing should be carried out with due recognition of the fact that it is a spiritual body dividing itself, and not in its spiritual character being divided by the State. It may be said that this is a pure matter of form. So it is, but all question of reverence are matters of form. When Cromwell stabled his horses in a church he was only guilty of an error in a matter of form. All reverence or irreverence is that. The sole purpose of this Amendment is to carry out the severance of the Welsh bishops and clergy from Convocation in a manner which will recognise that you are dealing with a spiritual body with a spiritual synod, and that you are not imposing the severance by an Act of the State. I am sure the Prime Minister will fully sympathise with me in the extreme dislike which Churchmen feel—this is quite as much an English question as a Welsh question, because it affects the severance of the spiritual body—against being treated as though they were a mere secular organisation by an Act of Parliament. It is the view of the disestablisher that the Church is a spiritual body and ought not to have any connection with the State. If you accept the extreme position of the disestablisher and say that the Church is a spiritual body which should control its own affairs, surely it is reasonable to say that it should divide its own sacred synod and that it should not be the State that comes in and cuts it in two.
With due regard to the legal character of Convocation on the one side and the spiritual character on the other, this Amendment has been framed by a very distinguished lawyer (Lord Phillimore) who used to be an advocate of Disestablishment and has always been a strong Liberal. In framing these words he has not the smallest intention of infringing in any degree the Disestablishment of the Church. His object is solely to maintain the Christian character of the synod and to effect the severance in a manner in accordance with its spiritual character.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that the Government will give a little further consideration to this Amendment, more particularly in view of what has happened in Convocation. There has been practically a decision to set up a Welsh province, and to demand that the Welsh Church should be constituted a separate province. I know that some Welsh Members feel that unless something like this Amendment is put in it is something like a derogation of the national character of the Disestablished Church in Wales. I am quite sure that it is. As the hon. Member for Merthyr has pointed out I have no longer the right to speak for any part of Wales or as a Member of the Welsh Church, but I speak as one who was formerly connected with the Church in Wales, and who still has some little interest in it, and I want to see it as a separate province under its own archbishop, duly constituted under proper ecclesiastical authority, and Convocation is the ecclesiatical authority which has created provinces from the earliest days in the history of the Church in this country, and it was the old form of Church government in this country, before there was any connection with the State in this or any other country, and settled the forms to be observed. In carrying out the nationalisation of the Welsh Church, and in creating the new province of Wales you should adopt the new form recommended by Lord Phillimore, and supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of St. David's, and I hope to be contradicted on this point if I am wrong—I believe that he is sympathetic in this matter. I would like to know from the Government whether the Welsh Bishops have shown themselves to be hostile to this Amendment. I hope that they will give further consideration to the matter. It is merely a matter of form, but
if they can be persuaded to give way even at the eleventh hour it will give satisfaction to a number of English Churchmen, and to a number of those who were Welsh Churchmen but are so no longer.

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that my Noble Friend will not press this Motion. I quite follow his explanation, and well understand, after listening to him very carefully, why my hon. Friends from Wales regard this with a great deal of suspicion. I am sure that it is liable to be misunderstood. The Noble Lord has the gift of lucidity of explanation, but with all his gifts of clear explanation it was obviously a most involved matter, and we are a very simple people. It was not moved by a representative of the Welsh Church, and the insertion of an Amendment of this kind would be regarded as an attempt to continue the official connection which is dissolved by the Act of Disestablishment, and to continue Establishment to that extent. I trust that in the circumstances my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment, because it is one of those Amendments which, I think, the Archbishop admitted was useless—I am not sure that he did not say so—an Amendment that had no practical value for the Church.

Lord H. CECIL: I do not think the Archbishop said it had no value.

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand his words were something to that effect. I am only quoting what my right hon. Friend tells me from his recollection. But the Archbishop attaches no very great importance to it, and the Nonconformists regard it with a good deal of suspicion. I hope my hon. Friends will not press it, because we cannot accept it.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 9.—(Short Title and Construction.)

This Act may be cited as the Welsh Church (Temporalities) Act, 1919, and shall be construed as one with the Welsh Church Act, 1914, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the Welsh Church Acts, 1914, and 1919.

Lords Amendment:

At end, add
(2) The provisions of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, specified in the first column of the Schedule to this Act, are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the second column of that Schedule.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." It is really consequential upon that which has just been discussed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

Insert the following Schedule:


SCHEDULE.


4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 91.
Extent of Repeal.


Section 8
In paragraph (a) (vii) of Sub-section (1) the words ("and not being a burial ground").



Paragraph (a) (viii) of Sub-section (1).



Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1).


Section 19
In Sub-section (1) the words ("and burial grounds")


Section 24
Sub-sections (3) and (4).


—[Mr. Shortt.]


—Disagreed with.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Fisher, Sir Edgar Jones, Sir Evan Jones, and Mr. Shortt.

Two to be the quorum.—[Mr. Shortt.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Orders of the Day — PROFITEERING BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[Sir. A. Geddes.]

Considered accordingly.

CLAUSE I.—(Powers of the Board of Trade to Investigate Complaints and Take Proceedings.)

(4) If any person at or for the purpose of any such investigation or in any such complaint furnishes any information or makes any representation which is recklessly or to his knowledge false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(6) In any proceedings under this Section to which the Board is a party costs may be awarded to or against the Board.

(7) This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by Order of the Board of Trade, being an article or class of articles declared by the Order to be one or one
of a kind in common use by the public, or being material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof, but this Act does not apply to any articles which are sold by public auction or competitive tender or which are from time to time declared to be controlled articles, and different provisions of this Act may be applied to different articles.

(10) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the sale of any article for export from the United Kingdom.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (4), after the word "complaint," insert the words "knowingly or recklessly."

The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Captain W. BENN: May we ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain what the Amendment is? It is hardly fair, even if we have to sit up all night, that we should not have some explanation of what first of all the Amendment means, and, secondly, what is the reason for the course the Government recommends to the House.

Sir A. GEDDES: I did not think it was necessary to give any explanation of this Amendment and the next one. It is merely a case of moving words from one part of the Clause to another to get them to qualify verbs instead of nouns. It is merely a drafting Amendment, put forward by the draftsman and adopted by the Lords. The next Amendment is precisely the same thing, and so is the one after. The next one is to insert the word "chairman." It was agreed to by this House, but was dropped in the printing. It is simply putting the word back exactly in the place in which it was when the Bill left this House. The next Amendment is to insert the words "of trade" after "Board." The next Amendment is to clarify the meaning of an Amendment. It applies to an Amendment which was introduced in this House describing articles which are sold by public auction or competitive tender, and which is not in the most happy place in the Bill; it is simply moved down to a more convenient place at the end of Sub-section 10, Clause 1, so that it will read, "or to the sale of any article by public auction or competitive tender." Those are simply drafting Amendments put forward by the Government. The next Amendment put in is an
Amendment by the Lords dealing with the question of an appeal from any decision of a local committee, limiting that appeal to these cases: "Against decisions other than the decision to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss all these Amendments now—it is rather difficult to follow them—before they have been put from the Chair?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Strictly speaking, it would not be in order, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the House.

Sir A. GEDDES: The last Amendment is one which it is considered necessary should be introduced to give the committees which are inquiring into the question of profiteering the protection against proceedings for libel which are possessed by a Court exercising judicial authority. As the Bill stood when it left this House, there was no actually expressed protection for these committees against actions for libel which might be brought against them. Naturally, it was assumed that no such action could have been brought. But it is considered better that that should be stated expressly in the Bill. Those are the Amendments. With the exception of the last, they are practically all drafting Amendments which simply involve moving the same words into more convenient positions in the Clauses.

Question put, and agreed to

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the words "recklessly or to his knowledge."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (6), after the word "Board" ["which the Board"], insert the words "of Trade."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (7), leave out the words "which are sold by public auction or competitive tender or."—Agreed to.

At end of Sub-section (10), add the words "or to the sale of any articles by public auction or competitive tender."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Establish Local Committees, etc.)

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Board may make Regulations and give directions as to the constitution, powers, and procedure of committee
established under this Section, and the districts for which they shall act, which Regulations and directions shall have effect as though enacted in this Act:

Provided that—
(b) such Regulations shall provide that a member of a committee established by a local authority shall be disqualified from acting in any case where he is a trade competitor of the person against whom the complaint under investigation has been lodged, and shall provide for a right of appeal by the seller from any order or decision of local committees to appeal tribunals appointed by the Board for the purpose, and for the constitution, powers, and procedure of such appeal tribunals, and shall make such provision as appears to the Board necessary for the prevention of frivolous complaints; and

Lords Amendment:

After the word "committees" ["local committees"] insert the words "other than a decision to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Information to be Treated as Confidential.)

Provided that nothing herein shall be taken as preventing the Board or any committee or tribunal from publishing their findings and decisions.

Lords Amendment:

At end, add
Any investigation under this Act shall, for the purposes of the law relating to libel and slander, be deemed to be proceedings before a Court exercising judicial authority.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. G. THORNE: This, I presume, follows the precedent for similar cases?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes; I understand that it is completely in accordance with precedent.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes before One o'clock.